I subscribe to and read the Washington Monthly magazine and would highly recommend it as well. The latest issue includes a review of a new book by Jonathan Chait (a senior editor at the New Republic magazine), titled "The Big Con: The True Story fo How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics." The review features the following quote from the book:
“American politics has been hijacked by a tiny coterie of right-wing economic extremists, some of them ideological zealots, others merely greedy, a few of them possibly insane… The scope of their triumph is breathtaking. Over the course of the last three decades, they have moved from the right-wing fringe to the commanding heights of the national agenda.”
Welcome to the party, Jonathan. I couldn't agree more, though I have to note that some of us have been saying exactly this for almost thirty years now. Nice to know that eventually a few of the Washinton elite get to see the light. Too bad it took so long. My own summary has always been that anyone who ever thought "supply-side" economics, inverting the progressive tax, and unleashing economic anarchy (the unregulated marketplace) was and is either mentally challenged or consciously evil. What's really too bad is that no amount of brilliant books and/or arguments will derrail this "Big Con." We are stuck with it now, until it crashes, which it always does. I'm just trying to do my best to hang around long enough to be here when that happens. Meanwhile, God help us all.
Friday, September 28, 2007
The Courts - Our Injustice system
As promised, a follow up to the last post, which characterised "Legalism" as a mental illness. There is no better illustration of this than the courts, at all levels. Judges often seem oblivious to common sense and reality, if they conflict with "the letter of the law." Prosecutors seek their job because they enjoy bullying the facts of a case in order to achieve as many convictions as possible. Some are just human pit bulls, some are hoping to become judges, some are just amoral and mean-spirited. When a trial requires a jury, the process becomes truly bizzare, as the judge and the lawyers conspire to empanel a group of airheads who have no opinions, don't read the papers or watch the news on TV, becausse otherwise "they may prejudge the case." The concept of a "jury of one's peers" was abandoned by English jurisprudence a few centuries ago, because they couldn't trust "peers" to be "objective." The result is a kind of chess game, in which prosecutors and defense attorneys do their level best to manipulate the jury with every trick they can muster. In ancient Greece this was known as Sophistry, and it was the primary reason early attempts at democracy failed utterly.
A recent Bizzaro cartoon summed up the inherent dishonesty of our court system as follows: When asked if he would swear "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," he replied, "Only if the lawyers do the same." Badda-boom! End of discussion. I keep praying that I'm never forced to stand in that jury box during the empaneling process, because I could easily end up in jail for contempt of court. They say that Shakespearre was only "kidding" when he wrote "Kill all the lawyers." You think?
Equal justice under the law? Whether or not you can afford to hire the "best" lawyers? Don't insult my intellligence.
Of course, we have courts of appeal, all the way up to the Supremes. Good luck there if you're not a right-wing Republican Corporation. The current Supreme Court acts like a board of directors; that's exactly how they came to subvert our democracy in 2000 and APPOINT George II as President. Even if the spineless Democrats actually held him and his criminal cohorts responsible for their lies and malfeasance (not likely), you can be sure that this Court would uphold his monarchial privileges.
A recent Bizzaro cartoon summed up the inherent dishonesty of our court system as follows: When asked if he would swear "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," he replied, "Only if the lawyers do the same." Badda-boom! End of discussion. I keep praying that I'm never forced to stand in that jury box during the empaneling process, because I could easily end up in jail for contempt of court. They say that Shakespearre was only "kidding" when he wrote "Kill all the lawyers." You think?
Equal justice under the law? Whether or not you can afford to hire the "best" lawyers? Don't insult my intellligence.
Of course, we have courts of appeal, all the way up to the Supremes. Good luck there if you're not a right-wing Republican Corporation. The current Supreme Court acts like a board of directors; that's exactly how they came to subvert our democracy in 2000 and APPOINT George II as President. Even if the spineless Democrats actually held him and his criminal cohorts responsible for their lies and malfeasance (not likely), you can be sure that this Court would uphold his monarchial privileges.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Police or Gangsters?
Every day there seems to be a new story in the media about a policeman killing someone "in the line of duty." Am I the only one who's noticed that this always seems to be happening in response to someone rrefusing to obey the officer's order? Since when is "failure to obey the order of a police officer" a capital crime? And where is it written that the officer who has been "dissed" is immediately empowered to act as judge, jury and executioner? Check it out if you doubt me. Even the most notorious examples of abuse involve someone running away, driving away, or otherwise refusing to obey an order. I thought only gangsters and punks were so worried about being "dissed" that they had to respond with violence. From personal experience, I can testify that too many SF Police have a giant chip on their shoulder about not being "respected." Well, respect and authority have to be EARNED. They are not automatically issued with a badge. Of course, the same is true and more so in Iraq, where our private mercenaries are usually the most violent and insecure "authorities."
Neither at home nor in Iraq is there anything like serious oversight of these abuses of authority, much less actual consequences. Our fear of "anarchy" interferes with our sense of justice. Not to strectch the analogy too far, but the same is true of umpires and referees in professional sports, especially Baseball and Basketball. There is no recourse to their errors, no matter how egregious, and the consequences of public disagreement, while not as draconian as summary execution, are always way out of proportiont to the behavior.
I am implacably and unalterably opposed to capricious and arbitrary "justice." Whether we are talking about immigration, traffic laws, street crime or even "bread and circuses." if we must have laws, they have to apply on both sides of the "badge" and they must be enforced consistently and responsibly. The Law is already primarily designed to protect the predator class and keep the rest of us in our place (the real Golden Rule is that whoever has the golf makes the rules), and they sure as hell don't make them for OUR benefit.
No, I'm not an "anarchist," we do need rules and the rules must be enforced, but someone needs to remove the blindfold from the eyes of Justice. Later, I'll address the problem of justice in the courts, now for sale to the highest bidder and the most sophistical lawyer. For now, I'll just note that "Legalism" is a mental illness.
Neither at home nor in Iraq is there anything like serious oversight of these abuses of authority, much less actual consequences. Our fear of "anarchy" interferes with our sense of justice. Not to strectch the analogy too far, but the same is true of umpires and referees in professional sports, especially Baseball and Basketball. There is no recourse to their errors, no matter how egregious, and the consequences of public disagreement, while not as draconian as summary execution, are always way out of proportiont to the behavior.
I am implacably and unalterably opposed to capricious and arbitrary "justice." Whether we are talking about immigration, traffic laws, street crime or even "bread and circuses." if we must have laws, they have to apply on both sides of the "badge" and they must be enforced consistently and responsibly. The Law is already primarily designed to protect the predator class and keep the rest of us in our place (the real Golden Rule is that whoever has the golf makes the rules), and they sure as hell don't make them for OUR benefit.
No, I'm not an "anarchist," we do need rules and the rules must be enforced, but someone needs to remove the blindfold from the eyes of Justice. Later, I'll address the problem of justice in the courts, now for sale to the highest bidder and the most sophistical lawyer. For now, I'll just note that "Legalism" is a mental illness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
