Brussels Belgium - Flickr

Most people in this country try are totally ignorant of how people outside of it live.  In fact according to this piece from a 2006 Denver Post, “Only about 23 percent of Americans own a passport, and only 10 percent of those actually leave the country.” That’s not very many and I am sure the figure now is much lower. It also does not even specify the destinations. This was not always the case. When the dollar was higher, there was significantly more travel and in the 1950s and 1960s when there was still a military draft, a lager number of service men and service women would be stationed in Germany or France of Greece or some other NATO country for their length in the military.

Does the US Supreme Court practice bullying? Under the guise of “seniority,” the newest justice is expected to perform menial tasks such as answering the conference door during closed sessions,  transmitting orders of the Court to the court’s clerk— and serving coffee to the others. How many years did Ruth Bader Ginsberg have to stand before she was allowed to sit for photo ops? Are these time-honored practices another form of hazing as we see in college fraternities or the military academies—a rite of passage?

The recent focus on bullying has captured the nation’s attention, from pop stars such as Madonna, all the way to the President and First Lady. And now there is a major movie based on real life experiences of children. We’ve read numerous accounts of bullying in the classroom, hazing in college fraternities and in the military. And among Wall Street traders. We’ve seen repercussions at a distance in cyber bullying and webcam spying. And blatant examples in hate crimes, sexual harassment, and the devastation caused by gangs. Intolerance of differences and control of others by coercion: hardly characteristics of democracy.

Each of us can recognize inhumane, anti-democratic practices and change them into positive encounters.

With all the talk of how the political right seems to be heading off a cliff and equated to fascists, I thought I would do a little reminiscing of how wonderful life was here during my childhood in the 1950s.

Lets start with the women first.

There is an interesting article from the New Yorker in the news section that was linked to by Artappraiser. For the purposes of this rant I will only refer to the introduction and not the document the article presents.

Most people in this country have taken a side in the controversy surrounding the arguably "legal" shooting of Trevon Martin. Everyone I have read here believes that his killing was an appalling injustice, and if the killers actions are protected by law then it is bad law which should be changed. Significantly, we are all speaking out, all venting our outrage, all feeling righteous in our conviction that this is the sort of wrong towards a specific human being which is brought about by the feelings of some, too many, against a class of human beings. The Americans who justify such action are heartless, twisted, racists. So, most everyone here can comfortably blame the other side in our national politics for their attitudes that created the situation which ended in tragic death of a human being who had as much right to walk the planet eating skittles as do any of us. We can blame the other political side because we see the error in their thinking, in their attitudes, and in their solutions. We know better, and we wouldn't allow those things if it was up to us, if it was in our ability to stop or prevent them. Yes, but we, we must speak up, we must demonstrate our outrage. There are lives in the balance. We must make our conscience a comfortable place to rest.

If I were a member of the Supreme Court I'd be a bit embarrassed at how easy it is to predict Supreme Court rulings knowing only a few elementary political facts.

I expect a 5-4 ruling and I expect it to break down along political lines. It shows me this, the Supreme Court is only there to support certain ideology, making this less about the Constitution and more about what it is to hold power for more than 30 years.  This, whether the members of the court care or not this is the problem. They've become, based on Bush v. Gore merely an arbiter that always errs on the side of promoting the political ideology of one side or another. Imagine if  Brown v. Board of Education, Bolling v. Sharpe, Cooper v. Aaron, Gomillion v. Lightfoot, Griffin v. County School Board, Green v. School Board of New Kent County, Lucy v. Adams, Loving v. Virginia had been left for this court to decide, shit, we be where South Africa was in the 1980's in terms of civil rights. We'd be the largest segregated nation on earth!

Well, let's get past the rant, let's talk about Anthony Kennedy.

Just as the Democrats dodged a bullet when John Edwards' primary fortunes went south, soon followed by his reputation for probity, so too did the French Socialist Party, (hopefully to be the party of the new president after Francois Hollande opens a can of run-off whup-fesses on Nicolas Sarkozy), when Strauss-Kahn availed himself of something from the in-room hospitality bar at Sofitel.

Had his career not cratered here in New York, he would have been just about to enter the lists against Sarkozy (who may have outsmarted himself, if indeed, he was the author of DSK's ensnarement in the attempted rape contretemps) when his frolic at a bunch of run-of-the-mill orgies in Lille resulted in the current charges that he did more than wave his flagpole, but actually flew the pimp flag itself.

Ask any of the  Republican presidential hopefuls in this long and drawn out primary season what in general is wrong with the economic policies of the Obama Administration, and they will each tell you that the economy is under-performing now because the current Administration intervenes in its workings too frequently and too heavily. They will each tell you that the private sector has not yet rebounded with sufficient vigor from the recession of 2008-9 because the footprint of the federal government is everywhere – everywhere too present and everywhere too controlling.

That standard Republican litany has one particularly unfortunate consequence – at least for potential Republican voters. It prevents any of the Party’s would-be presidential nominees from pointing to areas of American economic and social life in which current under-performance is caused by the lack of adequate federal intervention. Yet there are such areas, and they are areas of genuine Obama weakness. Two in particular spring to mind: inadequate intervention in the U.S. housing market,[1] and inadequate prosecution of banking folly and corruption.[2] Indeed the two are linked: the inability or unwillingness of the Obama Administration to adequately prosecute and control the economy’s major financial institutions is now one further cause of its inability to rapidly and effectively resolve the U.S. housing crisis.

And there still is a major U.S. housing crisis.

Former SEC Chief Accountant warns that the JOBS Act - sponsored by one of the most corrupt Congressmen in Washington - won't increase employment but will simplify swindling.

JOBS ACT OF 2012: WILL H.R. 3606 JUMPSTART OUR BUSINESS STARTUPS OR OPEN THE CROWDFUNDING FRAUD FLOODGATES?

U.S. Representative Stephen Fincher (R-TN-8) is a Big Ag businessman whose company has received over $8.9 million in government subsidies (corporate welfare) over the past ten years, a politician flagged but never penalized for federal election law violations by the Federal Election Commission last July, and a legislator the political watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) cites as one of the Most Corrupt Members of Congress:

http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/mostcorrupt/entry/stephen-fincher

His latest contribution to the corporate greed pervading our government is sponsorship of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, HR 3606, which has been passed with massive bipartisan support by both the House and Senate, but was sent back to the House to approve some Senate changes on Thursday (22 March 2012):

I have two sons, they are 25 and 21. They are not black. They are tall, 6'3 and 6'4, dirty blond hair, one has a crew cut, one's hair a tiny bit longer, one with hazel eyes and one with sea green eyes.

Last year I arrived home from my yearly trip to Manila. I went alone in 2011 and spent time with my parents. I arrived home February 21, 2011. The next day I was beat, jet lag, everything that goes with the trip home. I asked my son, who was 20 at that time, if I gave him a list and some money would he do some shopping for me, I was much too tired to be driving to the store let alone trying to shop. As usual, as he is a sweet boy err ummm man he said, sure mom.

He brought home the 2 gallons of organic milk, jazz apples, veggies and salad. It was a small list, not much. He got home, and he I said thanks and he went back to the basement.

Se Defendendo was a Latin phrase indicating acquittal for murder based upon self defense.

I had previously written of this wonder cache of original documents from the Old Bailey (duly archived and translated into modern printing with pictures of the original documents) dating from 1674 to 1913.

Using this site's search mechanisms I was only able to locate 10 cases out of hundreds upon hundreds of cases where a defendant was charged with 'murther' and was acquitted on the basis of Se Defendendo.

Ten cases over a 238 year span?