frankilin roosevelt

It's not about being liberal or conservative anymore y'all. That is a hype offered by the fascist whores who want to confuse the people with lies while they turn this country into an aristocratic police state. Some people will say anything to attain power and money. There is no such thing as the Liberal Media, but the Corporate media is very real.



Check out my old  Voice of the People page.


Gino Napoli
San Francisco, California
High School Math Teacher

jonsdarc@mindspring.com




Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.

a middle-aged
George Washington



ARCHIVES
1088 POSTS
LATEST ITEM

October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
September 2016
August 2016
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
September 2014
August 2014
May 2014
March 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
April 2012
March 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
August 2010
July 2010
March 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
August 2009
July 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
June 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
June 2005
May 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004

Thursday, 10 November 2005 at 19h 41m 36s

Here comes the propaganda machine

Thanks to the awesome billmon.org .

Top White House officials say they're developing a "campaign-style" strategy in response to increasing Democratic allegations that the Bush administration twisted intelligence to make its case for war. White House aides, who agreed to speak to CNN only on the condition of anonymity, said they hoped to increase what they called their "hit back" in coming days.

CNN
White House to Hit Back at Democrats
November 8, 2005

The seven tapes were already in Sirica's hands, and it was only a matter of time before they would become public at a trial. Haig wanted to blunt the impact of their disclosure in any way he could, to seize the issue on the President's terms. The preferable course was for Nixon to make a speech of contrition -- accept responsibility for past mistakes, acknowledge the abuses documented in the tapes, pledge a bright future. But Nixon could never undertake an act of public confession. He was too proud, it would break him. Haig knew Kissinger had already suggested something like that. Ziegler had rejected the notion, saying "Contrition is bullshit.".

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein
The Final Days
1976



Thursday, 10 November 2005 at 19h 6m 48s

Another point about Alito

From Americablog, blogger John in D.C.


...CNN's legal affairs expert, Jeffrey Toobin, just said that there does seem to be a distinction between what Alito said he'd do and what he actually did, Tobin then seriously misstated the entire problem.

Toobin said there are two issues here:

1. Whether it's prohibited for Alito to participate in a specific case; and

2. Whether there was some sort of computer glitch in the clerk's office that failed to notify Alito that he should have recused himself in the case.

But Toobin's description of the issues is missing the most important issue.

The issue here isn't whether Alito was or wasn't required, under court rules, to recuse himself from these cases. The issue is that Alito promised, seemingly under oath, NOT to hear these cases, period - but then went ahead and heard them anyway. That's a lie. It's also possibly perjury. And at the very least, it suggests he intentionally misled the Senate Judiciary Committee ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS in order to get confirmed.

As for Toobin's second argument, that the reason the case came to Alito was perhaps a computer glitch, again that's not the issue. The question is not HOW the cases came to Alito, the question is WHY Alito didn't recuse himself, as promised under oath, AFTER the cases came to him, regardless of how they came to him.

In the Vanguard case, Alito went out of his way to argue that there was no reason he should have to recuse himself. Not only does that negate the computer glitch argument - it doesn't matter how Alito got the case, he was perfectly happy KEEPING the case and argued that he should keep the case. But what's more, Alito actually had the nerve to argue that there was no reason to recuse himself from this case when there was a very good reason - he had previously promised to recuse himself, under oath.

Again, it's nice to split hairs about whether Alito was "legally" required to recuse himself under court rules dealing with conflicts of interest, etc., but that's not the issue here. The issue is that Alito promised, we assume under oath, to recuse himself in order to convince Senators to confirm him. Then after Alito got confirmed - bam! - he turned around and broke his promise, and hear the case anyway. And not just once, but three times.

The man is a liar, quite possibly a perjurer, and at the very least he's someone with a proven track record of saying anything to Senators in order to be confirmed. There is now no reason any Senator should vote for Alito based on any testimony



By the way, Toobin is a hack. He writes books about political events that seem to be unbiased and thorough to the non-expert, but which somehow skip over major relevant portions of those events and focus on largely inconsequential portions of the same events.

But Jeffrey Toobin is the expert the television audience gets. Not someone with more knowledge, and more integrity like University of Michigan History professor Juan Cole -- or Princeton economics professor Paul Krugman -- or .... Who the hell is Jeffrey Toobin? Whoa, a journalist ... yeah, well judge thee by the traces of thine works.

Mr. Toobin, how could you write a whole 250 page book about the 2000 Florida election and write only 2 weak sentences about the Felon lists and the entire history of DBA- Choicepoint contracts and the three (yes, three) judicial decisions which informed Governor Jeb Bush that the way that Felon lists were being collected were unconstitutional. And the two sentences themselves stated that Mr. Toobin held these events to be of dubious value.

In addition, Mr. Toobin neglected to mention the role John Roberts played in the White House legal team. He did not even mention the fact that staffers were flown to West Palm Beach on Enron jets to fake a citizens' protest. And Mr. Toobin, your take on the ruling by the supreme court was benign to the point of distraction. You completely obfuscate the event with your book-wide theme that the Gore team was inferior to the legal team of Bush because the Bush team went on the attack from day one.

My God lad, the Court came in and stopped the law from taking effect, completely ignoring the despicable obstruction by the Rethuglican's (real Republican's would never act as such). As I've said in a recent post, the court could have made many rulings -- one that could have validated the sanctity of the vote, even to the point of ordering a new vote. Ordering a new vote is not without precident (albeit not at the Presidential level) -- but that is not what happened now, is it Mr. Toobin. And not a word too that Antonin Scalia and Judge Thomas had ties to the Bush campaign (family members working for the administration -- Scalia's son even got appointed to head the government agency that overseas OSHA regulations, and not without a righteous criticism).

So what is your real purpose Mr. Toobin?


CNN's legal affairs expert, Jeffrey Toobin


Thursday, 10 November 2005 at 19h 16m 26s

Daddy, I want my lollipop

This comes from the Anchorage News. [SOURCE]

It concerns the dropping of drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge from the Budget in the hopes that the Budget could pass the House. Accordingly ...

More than 20 Republicans have told the House leadership they would not vote for the budget unless they were assured ANWR won't be added into the final House- Senate compromise, the Washington Post reported Thursday. ...

ANWR is just one of many controversies in the bill, which aims to save $54 billion over five year by reducing programs like Medicaid, food stamps, student loans and child support enforcement.

House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, said it's incorrect to call these "cuts." They are small reductions in the growth of government programs, he told the House Rules Committee Wednesday night.

Rep. James McGovern said the reductions will cut services for poor people at a time when need is growing. About 300,000 people will lose eligibility for food stamps, he said.

"To say that these aren't cuts is to imply that somehow …. real people aren't going to get hurt," he said. "Well, if this budget moves forward as its currently written, real people will get hurt."

Nussle said the Democrats are doing nothing to improve the situation.

"Where's your plan?" Nussle demanded. "Where's your plan for the people who need this help?"


I love that last bit by lame ole Jim Nussle. How many ideas and alternative policy choices do those who oppose this have to say before politicians like Jim Nussle can stop playing games about how they are deaf to everything but their own one track mind. Howard Dean had plenty of ideas he shared during his run for Presidency. He still shares his ideas. Everyday in fact, but alas, what voices does the "liberal media" put on the air everyday. And hacks like Nussle know this. He preys on the ignorance of the television addicts who get their news completely from television.

(Note to reader -- it's called research. You can't expect info to come to you. And don't expect the information that does will be the truth.)

Current ideas Mr. Nussle can't hear: Reform the tax code. Enforce the tax laws. Revoke the tax cuts for the wealthy. That's three alone that various different Democrats and opposition Republican's have offered. But when you mention those ideas to the men whose voices appear in the media (like Nussle) they find some problem with the idea.

It's not that the Democrats have no ideas, Mr. Hackster Jimothy Nussle. It's that you are arrogant and would rather play politics than honestly attempt to address the nation's problems. Your own reckless ideas however must be perceived for the makeup you put on the pig.

It's a pig. You are a pig too, Mr. Nussle, a virulent, shameless pig. Which is why Tom Delay appointed you to your current position in the first place.

House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa.)


Thursday, 10 November 2005 at 18h 4m 13s

It's not about Journalistic rights, Judith

It is about being a dishonest political hack.

This comes from Atrios. [SOURCE]


Adam Clymer, retired political correspondent for the Times, recalls an episode during the 1988 presidential campaign, when Miller was deputy Washington bureau chief.

Then the political editor based in New York, Clymer was awakened just after midnight one morning by a call from Miller, he says. She was demanding that a story about Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis be pulled from the paper.

The story was too soft, she complained -- and said Lee Atwater, the political strategist for Vice President George H.W. Bush, believed it was soft as well. Clymer said he was stunned to realize that Atwater apparently had either seen the story or been told about it before publication. He and Miller argued, he recalls, and he ultimately hung up on her, twice.


When she was the deputy Washington bureau chief she was taking stories about the Democratic candidate and showing them to the opposition before they were published.


Wednesday, 9 November 2005 at 20h 58m 31s

Reason versus faith

"You cannot reason a person out of a position that they did not first reason themselves into."

-- Jonathan Swift


Wednesday, 9 November 2005 at 17h 35m 13s

The Problem with Frenchness

This is a great post by Juan Cole. The piece so definitively explains the situation in France that I am reproducing the entire post on my own blog. The hard-link at juancole.com is here.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005
-- by Juan Cole

The Problem with Frenchness

Readers have asked me for comment about the riots in France that have now provoked emergency laws and a curfew. What I would rather comment on, however, is the myths that have governed many rightwing American comments on the tragic events. Actually, I can only think that the disturbances must produce a huge ice cream headache for the dittoheads. French of European heritage pitted against French of African and North African heritage? How could they ever pick a side?

I should begin by saying how much these events sadden me and fill me with anguish. I grew up in part in France (7 years of my childhood in two different periods) and have long been in love with the place, and the people. We visited this past June for a magical week. And, of course, I've been to Morocco and Tunisia and Senegal, and so have a sense of the other side in all this; I rather like all those places, too. How sad, to see all this violence and rancor. I hope Paris and France more generally can get through these tough times and begin working on the underlying problems soon. At this time of a crisis in globalization in the wake of the Cold War, we need Paris to be a dynamic exemplar of problem-solving on this front.

The French have determinedly avoided multiculturalism or affirmative action. They have insisted that everyone is French together and on a "color-blind" set of policies. "Color-blind" policies based on "merit" always seem to benefit some groups more than others, despite a rhetoric of equality and achievement. In order to resolve the problems they face, the French will have to come to terms with the multi-cultural character of contemporary society. And they will have to find ways of actively sharing jobs with minority populations, who often suffer from an unemployment rate as high as 40 percent (i.e. Iraq).

Mark Steyn of the Chicago Sun-Times commits most of the gross errors, factual and ethical, that characterize the discourse of the Right in the US on such matters.

For instance, Steyn complains that the rioters have been referred to as "French youths."


''French youths,'' huh? You mean Pierre and Jacques and Marcel and Alphonse? Granted that most of the "youths" are technically citizens of the French Republic, it doesn't take much time in les banlieus of Paris to discover that the rioters do not think of their primary identity as ''French'': They're young men from North Africa growing ever more estranged from the broader community with each passing year and wedded ever more intensely to an assertive Muslim identity more implacable than anything you're likely to find in the Middle East. After four somnolent years, it turns out finally that there really is an explosive ''Arab street,'' but it's in Clichy-sous-Bois.


This paragraph is the biggest load of manure to hit the print media since Michael Brown (later of FEMA) and his Arabian Horse Society were profiled in Arabian Horse Times.

The French youth who are burning automobiles are as French as Jennifer Lopez and Christopher Walken are American. Perhaps the Steyns came before the Revolutionary War, but a very large number of us have not. The US brings 10 million immigrants every decade and one in 10 Americans is now foreign-born. Their children, born and bred here, have never known another home. All US citizens are Americans, including the present governor of California. "The immigrant" is always a political category. Proud Californio families (think "Zorro") who can trace themselves back to the 18th century Spanish empire in California are often coded as "Mexican immigrants" by "white" Californians whose parents were Okies.

A lot of the persons living in the urban outer cities (a better translation of cite than "suburb") are from subsaharan Africa. And there are lots of Eastern European immigrants. The riots were sparked by the deaths of African youths, not Muslims. Singling out the persons of Muslim heritage is just a form of bigotry. Moreover, French youth of European heritage rioted quite extensively in 1968. As they had in 1789. Rioting in the streets is not a foreign custom. It has a French genealogy and context.

The young people from North African societies such as Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are mostly only nominal Muslims. They frequently do not speak much Arabic, and don't have "proper" French, either. They frequently do not know much about Islam and most of them certainly don't practice it-- much less being more virulent about it than Middle Easterners.

Aware of their in-between-ness, young persons of North African heritage in France developed a distinctive identity. They took the word Arabe and scrambled it to produce Beur (which sounds in French like the word for "butter"). Beur culture can be compared a bit to hip-hop as a form of urban expression of marginality and self-assertion in a racist society. It is mostly secular.

Another thing that is wrong with Steyn's execrable paragraph is that it assumes an echt "Frenchness" that is startling in a post-Holocaust thinker. There are no pure "nations" folks. I mean, first of all, what is now France had a lot of different populations in it even in the 18th century-- Bretons (Gaelic speakers), Basques, Alsatians (German speakers), Provencale people in the south, Jews, etc., etc. "Multi-culturalism" is not something new in Europe. What was new was the Romantic nationalist conviction that there are "pure" "nations" based on "blood." It was among the more monstrous mistakes in history. Of course if, according to this essentially racist way of thinking, there are "pure" nations that have Gypsies, Jews and others living among them, then the others might have to be "cleansed" to restore the "purity."

Yet another problem: France has for some time been a capitalist country with a relatively strong economy. Such economies attract workers. There have been massive labor immigration flows into France all along. In the early 20th century Poles came to work in the coal mines, and then more came in the inter- war period. By the beginning of the Great Depression, there were half a million Polish immigrants in France. Their numbers declined slightly in the next few years. There were even more Italians. There isn't anything peculiar about having large numbers of immigrants who came for work. And, few in France in the early 20th century thought that Poles were susceptible of integration into French society. Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy, who has made himself unpopular by exacerbating tensions with intemperate language, is the son of immigrants (I guess he does not count as "French" according to Steyn's criteria.)

Steyn wants to create a 1300-year struggle between Catholic France and the Muslims going back to Tours. This way of thinking is downright silly. France in the 19th century was a notorious ally of the Muslim Ottoman Empire, and fought alongside Muslims against the Christian Russians in the Crimean War. Among contemporary French, 40 percent do not even believe in God, and less than 20 percent go to mass at all regularly. Many of the French of non-European heritage are also not religious.

The French repaid the compliment of Tours by conquering much of the Middle East. Bonaparte aggressively and viciously invaded Egypt in 1798, but couldn't hold on there. But in 1830 the French invaded Algeria and incorporated it into France. Algeria was "French soil." They reduced the Algerian population (which they brutalized and exploited) to marginal people under the colonial thumb. The French government of Algeria allowed hundreds of thousands to perish of famine in the 1870s. After World War II, given low French birth rates and a dynamic capitalist economy, the French began importing Algerian menial labor. The resulting Beurs are no more incapable of "integrating" into France than the Poles or Jews were.

So it wasn't the Algerians who came and got France. France had come and gotten the Algerians, beginning with Charles X and then the July Monarchy. They settled a million rather rowdy French, Italians and Maltese in Algeria. These persons rioted a lot in the early 1960s as it became apparent that Algeria would get its independence (1962). In fact, European settler colonists or "immigrants" have caused far more trouble in the Middle East than vice versa.

The kind of riots we are seeing in France also have occurred in US cities (they sent Detroit into a tailspin from 1967). They are always produced by racial segregation, racist discrimination, spectacular unemployment, and lack of access to the mainstream economy. The problems were broached by award-winning French author Tahar Ben Jalloun in his French Hospitality decades ago.

(Americans who code themselves as "white" are often surprised to discover that "white people" created the inner cities here by zoning them for settlement by racial "minorities," excluding the minorities from the nicer parts of the cities and from suburbs. As late as the 1960s, many European-Americans were willing to sign a "covenant" not to sell their houses to an African-American, Chinese-American or a Jewish American. In fact, in the US, the suburbs were built, most often with de facto government subsidies in the form of highways and other perquisites, as an explicit means of racial segregation. Spatial segregation protected "white" businesses from competition from minority entrepreneurs, who couldn't open shops outside their ghettos. In France, government inputs were used to create "outer cities," but many of the same forces were at work.) The French do not have Jim Crow laws, but de facto residential segregation is a widespread and intractable problem.

The problem is economic and having to do with economic and residential exclusionism, not with an "unassimilable" "immigrant" minority. (The French authorites deported a lot of Poles in the 1930s for making trouble by trying to unionize and strike, on the grounds that they were an unassimilable Slavic minority.)

On the other hand, would it be possible for the French Muslim youth to be pushed toward religious extremism if the French government does not address the underlying problems. Sure. That was what I was alluding to in my posting last week.

The solution? Recognizing that "Frenchness" is not monochrome, that France is a tapestry of cultures and always has been, and that sometimes some threads of the tapestry need some extra attention if it is not to fray and come apart.


Monday, 7 November 2005 at 17h 20m 9s

An advertiser's nightmare.

I listen to the radio. I learn that I am holding back my money- making potential and should spend thirty-nine ninety-nine to release my subconscious fears that cause me to make less money. I discover that I have nagging fears about paying my five monthly bills, and should consider getting advice from the experts -- for only nine ninety-nine a month, and that's just pennies a day mind you. I'm not yet good enough, I don't look right, I'm not doing something correctly, but sure enough, for only a small fee, I'll get to be perfect and dandy.

When the courtesy calls come, I hang up the phone. When I get the endless mail concerning pre-approved debt, I toss the letters in the nearby trash can. Sometimes I'll talk to the Indian telephone worker calling from Bank of America to sell me Life Insurance, but only to ascertain from where on the global map the call is coming. I am 36 years old, and have no children or wife. Giving the bank more of my money so they can use it to play with securities and bonds is ridiculous. The only difference between Insurance and Ponzi schemes, is the size of the fund. They use your money to invest and play the stock market, with the understanding that the percentage of claims will always be less than the initial funds growth potential. However, the institutions often separate collection (sales) from investment (profit) to the extent that there is little communication between the 2 operations. And that is why insurance rates have skyrocketed over the last 4 years. We are paying higher premiums for their foolish stock-market escapades.

So when I discover via television advertising that Mr. Greybeard won't get the hottie, or, if the sexy momma likes me only when I use Gilette, you can still betcha I am not moving a millimeter at all to the nearby store. Nope, not at all. I know I'm missing out on all of what each and every one of the rehearsed roles say, but alas, I guess I'm just gonna buck the TV crowd nevertheless. I admit, I've always been a god damn independent, but what these people do is much worse -- they guilt trip you when you don't act like them. Or they try to. As far as I'm concerned, you can just be you, that's good enough for me.

Are these people really paid well to push this pap psyco-babble?


Monday, 7 November 2005 at 6h 34m 43s

I love Jim Hightower


"To measure the vitality of a town, don't look for corporate logos but for signs that the community has some semblance of a soul."

Jim Hightower, 4 November 2005


In other words, the town center is more vibrant without a McDonalds, Starbucks, and B Dalton Bookstore located where a small local business used to be. In the name of progress called corporate profit extraction we have torn the heart of living out of our chest, so that we can receive the advertized version.

When big business replaces small business, lots of middle men get cut out because the market operations and the local business spending shrinks, and becomes reallocated. The above businesses have their own warehouses and financial centers far removed from the thousands (millions even) of retail stores and their locales. Decisions are made by persons who will never meet the people affected by those decisions, and so those persons do not at all weigh upon the factors which go into the decisions. Indeed, the sole weight becomes pure financial gain.

So when Starbucks goes into a new market and buys up the surrounding property, they are doing so to control the competition. When McDonalds sponsors and supports the unhealthy raising of cattle and the bad agricultural practices which enable its world-wide array of supplies, they do so because they want to experience economies of scale. Local businesses sponsor local sources of supply, which is where the restaurants of San Francisco obtain their grass-fed beef. For small proprietors , the demand for economies of scale are not possible at the magnitude of large corporations because they do not have the market power to force or create suppliers that cut costs at the expense of health or quality.

Personally I think no retail or food business should be allowed to cross state lines, and I also think limitations should be placed on how many businesses any one controling group can own. Right now we are just creating an aristocracy, and a polity which is merely the well-funded propaganda arm of the rising aristocracy.


Saturday, 5 November 2005 at 1h 20m 23s

Excerpt from my soon to be finished novel

I really liked this exchange, and thought I'd share it with everyone.

Juvi raised his beer. “I hear you, dog.” He then added sincerely, “But I grew up in that park, man. It was hard to see it go. And now ... and now there ain’t nowhere for the young brothers to go hang out except on street corners and in automobiles. I mean shit. It never was about jobs. It was always about ownership. You know they talk about everyone being able to buy a piece of the corporate ownership, but fuck man, I got maybe 10 or 20 grand surplus cash in any given year, hows am I supposed tuh compete with mother fuckers who gots 10 to 100 millions extra in the bank? Sooner or later the little people get priced outta da market and the rich people own everything. Then they start pushing judges and politicians on us, trying to convince everyone that their self-serving philosophy is beneficial. That’s all corporations do for America.”

“Put a man in a strait-jacket”, Jim began, his beer grasped firmly in his right hand, “ and call the few who escape entrepreneurs or men of genius. Everyone else is a loser, but at least the strait-jacket makers come out with a lotta money.”

The men laughed.


Thursday, 3 November 2005 at 18h 15m 32s

Another judge with integrity


Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.

I got this from Atrios, who quotes from a Boston Globe article here.

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. ruled in a 2002 case in favor of the Vanguard mutual fund company at a time when he owned more than $390,000 in Vanguard funds and later complained about an effort to remove him from the case, court records show -- despite an earlier promise to recuse himself from cases involving the company.

The case involved a Massachusetts woman, Shantee Maharaj, who has spent nearly a decade fighting to win back the assets of her late husband's individual retirement accounts, which had been frozen by Vanguard after a court judgment in favor of a former business partner of her husband.

Her lawyer, John G. S. Flym, a retired Northeastern law professor, said in an interview yesterday that Alito's ''lack of integrity is so flagrant" in the case that he should be disqualified as a Supreme Court nominee.

Maharaj, 50, discovered Alito's ownership of Vanguard shares in 2002 when she requested his financial disclosure forms after he ruled against her appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

...

In 1990, when Alito was seeking US Senate approval for his nomination to be a circuit judge, he said in written answers to a questionnaire that he would disqualify himself from ''any cases involving the Vanguard companies."

...

According to a 2002 court filing submitted by Flym alleging the conflict of interest, ''Alito owned shares worth $390,000 to $975,000 in seventeen Vanguard funds."

Surrounded by piles of legal documents at her temporary home yesterday, Maharaj held up one of the briefs in the case submitted to the Third Circuit and pointed to the listed parties, which included The Vanguard Group Inc., Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company, and Vanguard/Morgan Growth Fund Inc.

''How could [Alito] not have known Vanguard was a defendant?" she asked. ''He had to have."


So Alito can't recuse himself from the court, even though he said he would on a 1990 questionnaire?

It appears that Judge Alito is more "in the mold of Justice Scalia" every day. How could anyone have any doubts? Of course this judge's perspective is tainted with his own fudiciary interest, as well as his own position in the same society over which he finds himself presiding. In the Globe article, Alioto says that he is only "an investor" not an owner, apparently oblivious of his ownership of contractual rights to profit disbursement -- ie. financial gain.

It is infuriating to me, how anyone can say otherwise with a straight-face. Owners might be the big bosses, they might work at the company everyday and know the employees; but how many mom & pop self-proprietor's do people invest their money? Investors put their funds in the stocks and bonds of the financial system and corporation assets. In the narrowest sense, investors want to make a high percentage per year on their initial purchase of dividend- bearing paper. Judicial decisions that cost their investments money directly affect them financially when the corporation has to decrease the dividends.

Antonin Scalia, chief Justice of the Supreme court, went on a duck-hunting expedition with Vice President Dick Cheney weeks before a case involving documents from Cheney's 2001 Energy commmission was to come before the Supreme Court. Judicial Watch sued for those documents and was able to get some of them before a judge issued an injunction and the legal case took the path upon the 2004 Supreme Court case.

One of the documents obtained was a map of all the Iraqi oil fields marked over with 11 oil companies. What was Cheney doing in April of 2001 with all of the large energy companies? Planning for the California Energy Holdup to make a few bucks for his Enron buddies, AND preparing for the Iraq carve-up they were also planning. They knew Al Quada would soon make a terrorist attack, and they were anticipating with salivation how they could best manipulate the event for their own ends.

Yes that's what kind of men we have in the Adminstration. I admit this is rather harsh, but it is also the truth. They said so much themselves in 1997 when they signed a document which laid out their plans to invade the middle east.

This was the same court that cast the deciding vote to enable Bush into office in the first place, despite all of the many shenanegans during the recount process, and the felony lists that disenfranchised 90,000 people, most of which were not even felons because the Republican company (Choicepoint-DBA) that collected the lists were apparently very sloppy. Mind you that all of this occurred in brother Jeb Bush's state of Florida. Kenny Lay's Enron jets flew Congressional staffers to West Palm Beach to scream up a fake popular protest and slow down Democracy when the law was being followed and the votes were being counted. Meanwhile recently appointed new Supreme Court Justice John Roberts was at the time providing the guidelines and legal planning for the Bush team. I'm sure his legal advice was ... non-partisan and unbiased.

The counting of those votes were all ordered stopped by an unprecedented injunction from the Supreme court. The reasoning laid out in the decision was that it would have unnecessarily disrupted the nation, the people's will be damned.

Can you say Dred Scott? The court could have just as easily ruled that the votes of all Florida be counted, or the court could have voted in favor of democracy. The American people could have waited another 2 weeks so long as the process was fair, and without the legal manuevering and political posturing that occurred by the Bush administration. Bush was already making a pompous show about picking and selecting his cabinet within 3 days of the election. Instead of working out a way to follow Florida Law and count the votes without disarray, the Bush people sued to have the counting of the votes stopped. They would have almost had the Florida State Legislature vote for new electors that would have nullified the counting had not the Supreme Court stepped in with the historic injunction.

The supreme court could have decided and could have made any different amount of decisions based upon many different precidents. The sanctity of the vote could have been upheld. It's not hard to count votes really. The myth about the hanging chads has belittled the history of counting ballots, and ignored the long struggle of Americans to make democracy real. The constitution did not guaranteed the right of all persons to vote. Voting is a legal province of the States, and was only gradually Federalized over the last 200 years, with the civil rights struggles of the 50's and 60's representing the latest in a long struggle over equal rights and representative government. I believe election 2000 was the watershed of a new struggle.

It's called a Coup D'Etat. They stole the election and now they are destroying the nation.

We can't expect them to nominate anyone but people like themselves to the Supreme Court.




GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS