Supreme Court getting a new Souter?

Corporate Supreme Court sucks up all our rights

United States Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter has announced he will be leaving his position in June, providing President Obama with the opportunity to replace the Republican chosen Justice with someone more socially aware.

Justice Souter was appointed by Republican President George H. W. Bush to represent big business in the Supreme Court.  Souter did not let Bush down, consistently voting for big business over society whenever possible, to the extent that business publications openly admit the Court was sided 6-3 or 7-2 in favor of big business (Justice Kennedy being the swing vote, see this Forbes article for an example).    Per that same Forbes article,”…William Eskridge, a professor at Yale Law School and a prominent scholar on Supreme Court dynamics said: “Many of the business cases were 6-3 or 7-2 [decisions] and that isn’t likely to change.”

Probably the most extreme example (but not the only one) of Souter’s fixation on putting large corporate profits over people’s rights was his lead opinion in 2008 to drastically reduce the fine paid by Exxon for their negligent and destructive oil spill (Exxon Valdez).  Souter’s twisted ruling came as Exxon was pulling down record profits, thanks to so many Americans willing to die and kill for oil profits.

In order to ensure another pro-business candidate replaces Justice Souter, a well financed PR campaign has begun.  One slimy psychological tactic  used is: to ‘announce’ a likely candidate who is favorable to corporate profits, in this case Justice Sonia Sotomayor a Bush I appointee.  Then, to build opposition support for their own candidate, release media ‘attacks’ based on bigotry.  In this case, many articles were placed attacking Sotomayor for being a Hispanic woman.  These articles cause the expected instinctive reaction from people who hate bigotry to support Sotomayor, a candidate against their own interest.  Now many people are supporting Sotomayor, unfortunately without any idea they are being manipulated by well financed PR campaigns.

The candidacy of President Obama is a perfect example of this tactic. Large corporate funding supported his candidacy for president.

Step 1: finance a Black and a female candidate for President who are both strong supporters of Big Business.  Both Clinton and Obama have been in favor of increases in military budget, banking financing, etc.  Obama has continued to push money to big business since his election.

Step 2: Use ownership of newspapers, TV, and radio media to attack candidates based on sex or race.  Never mention the candidates support of controlling corporate financing.

Step 3: Watch people get upset by attacks and become defensive, as planned.  Continue attacks to spur their enthusiasm for your candidate.

Step 4: People enthusiastically vote for sympathetic character, who happens to be against their values.

Step 5: Profit!

Obama’s pro-big business actions since his election reinforces an important ideal: it is more beneficial to elect someone whose policies will help Black people than someone who is Black themselves.  I’d rather we had Ralph Nader, who has fought for woman’s rights, than a woman who ignores those rights, like Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin.  Please, let’s not get fooled again.

meet the new spokesmodel, same as the old spokesmodel

Comic from Down with Tyranny.  Bush/Obama mask from Spidered News.

Ad Art, beautiful inspired creative artistic ads

With so much of new world advertisement trying to surreptitiously alter people’s way of thinking both consciously and subconsciously, it is refreshing to see ads that use beautiful artistic creative means of drawing our attention to their products.   Here are a few adverts that I found to be quite stunning.  Hope you enjoy!

Federal Appeals Court rejects class-action light cigarette suit

A class action lawsuit alleging fraud by the cigarette companies was thrown out by a federal appeals court.  Recently, U.S. federal and supreme courts have made radically absurd judgments to protect large corporations from repaying the public for damages made, but this is NOT one of those absurd judgements.  This lawsuit had no merit.

The lawsuit basically alleges that cigarette companies produced and sold cigarettes they called ‘light’ even though they conclusively knew that they were no safer than regular cigarettes.  Smokers would compensate for the lost ‘lighter’ smoke by inhaling for longer breaths and buying more cigarettes.  For this reason, the lawsuit alleges ‘fraud’.

No, that is not fraud.  The cigarettes in fact did exactly what they were advertised to do, produce less smoke.  When I started smoking, and someone gave me a light cigarette, I knew to put tape around the filter to close the holes that reduced the smoke intake and make it a ‘regular’.  Even if you did not know that, you still had a cigarette that produced less smoke due to the holes in the filter (drew air to mix with smoke).

Some people argue that the law should apply what the ‘average person’ should know.  And others argue that the stupidest of people should be protected.  Either way, this case was justifyably thrown out.

To get away from the bias of ‘evil’ cigarette companies, we have a good parallel example: milk.  Milk contains fat, of which in excess can cause horrible diseases and early death.   Not only does ’2% milk’ not have 2% the fat of regular milk (it has over 50%) but we psychologically compensate for the lost taste and color (in coffee and chocolate milk) by adding more ‘light’ milk.  When I use skim milk in my coffee, I keep going until it overflows – we all subconsciously go by color when we add milk to coffee, thus offsetting the fat reduction.  Should the milk industry be liable for fraud?

Class action lawsuits are very important in our culture, helping to prevent high level crimes and reimbursement for being wronged.  Business and press have been using this case to argue that class action lawsuits are too frequently used in our society, and they are completely wrong and just trying to protect large industry.  This case was correctly thrown out because it failed on merit.

Question everything?

Some quotes have survived generations because, like images, they inspire thought. Others survive because they are repeated over and over during a sporting event. So, ahem, Where’s the beef?

The following quote from George Bernard Shaw sticks with me because I feel we only gain intellectually when we question everything. Or ‘one thing I do know, and that is that I know nothing’ as stated either by Socrates or in Hogan’s Heroes, …who remembers.

Here is a quote I found from George Bernard Shaw, through the Futility Closet website:

“A razor company once invited George Bernard Shaw to shave his famous beard. He responded with a postcard:

Gentlemen:

I shall never shave, for the same reason that I started a beard, and for the reason my father started his. I remember standing at his side, when I was five, while he was shaving for the last time. “Father,” I asked, “Why do you shave?” He stood there for a full minute and finally looked down at me. “Why the hell do I?” he said.”

Why am I doing this?