January 20, 2012 at 12:13 P.M. My sympathies to all of those who lost everything in fires in Union City, New Jersey. I can neither confirm nor deny that some of the property lost in those fires belongs to Senator Menendez and other local political or legal figures, possibly through intermediaries. I hope that no one will be hurt in such incidents in the future (if there are any). I further hope that there will be no more anti-semitic attacks in New Jersey. However, as to future fires in Hudson County and additional hate attacks, I am concerned that we will see more such incidents in the days and weeks to come. I urge one and all to read James Baldwin's fine essay, "The Fire Next Time."
AP, "Websites Go Dark to Protest Anti-Piracy Bill," in Newsday, January 19, 2012, at p. A8 and http://www.newsday.com/nation .
Jenna Wortham, "Protest on Web Takes On 2 Bills Aimed at Piracy," in The New York Times, January 18, 2012, at p. A1.
Jonathan Weissman, "Web Rises Up to Defeat Bills Seen as a Threat," in The New York Times, January 19, 2012, at p. A1.
"On-Line Piracy and Political Overreach," (Editorial) in The New York Times, January 19, 2012, at p. A22.
"LOS ANGELES -- In a move that heightens the growing tension between Sillicon Valley and Hollywood, Wikipedia and other websites went dark yesterday to protest two congressional proposals intended to thwart on-line piracy of copyrighted movies and TV programs." (Newsday.)
All I had to discover to oppose this cleverly disguised attempt to curtail free speech is the names of the sponsors of this legislation: Marco Rubio (R) and Peter King (R), with token Democrat support, are not politicians who will go down in history as great civil libertarians concerned about the free speech rights of the "little guy." They care even less, it seems, about copyright laws. ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review.")
In fact, the so-called "On-Line Piracy Act" and "Intellectual Property Act" are aimed at enhancing law enfocement control of the Internet by permitting government to shut down websites, ostensibly on the basis of Americans' affiliation with (horrors!) "foreigners," but actually to control the dissemination of radical political opinions which are often found among those same annoying foreigners who presume to disagree with us on any given issue. ("Little Brown Men Are Only Objects For Us" and "John Rawls and Justice.")
To read books by foreigners and radicals (Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, J.K. Rowling, Judith Butler, or even Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) while presuming to discuss their ideas has become a category of guilt in America's national security state and, soon, grounds for a one-way trip to Guantanamo -- or assassination for unspecified reasons -- since this is a power over life and death that is already available to America's chief executive, until the Supreme Court says otherwise. Justice Thomas is bound to dissent from any decision aimed at enforcing Bill of Rights protections.
Republicans warn that we must guard against the nefarious influence of foreign fundamentalists and possible terrorists -- like David Cameron of Great Britain, perhaps. Mr. Cameron along with other "extremist" leaders of strange countries with many little brown persons -- including, possibly, Angela Merkel whose homeland, Germany, now contains countless individuals formerly from Islamic nations who, Republicans insist, are never to be trusted. ("G.E. Moore's Critique of Idealism.")
Congress is not going to side with Hollywood against Sillicon Valley. Rather, Republicans are trying to "arrange" for the U.S. government to side against citizens expressing opinions critical of the massive law enforcement machinery put in place after 9/11 that is intended to monitor and "control" our intellectual activities and expressions. We all live in Foucault's "Panopticon" these days. ("Marco Rubio Lies About His Past!" and "Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me'" then "Jacques Derrida's Philosophy as Jazz" and "Michel Foucault and the Authorship Question" also "Foucault, Rose, Davis and the Meanings of Prison.")
Given my philosophical interests and writings, I am confident that my sites will be among the first to be shut-down, probably without due process of any kind or a single warning, followed by my disappearance and torture at the hands of large and smelly Cubanoids from Miami seeking instructions from a man identified only as "Marco." (Again: "What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review" then see Liam Neeson in the movie "Taken." Also: "Time to End the Embargo Against Cuba.")
It is the very people who have plagiarized my writings in the past and who have done damage to my sites through what (until now) was illegal hacking, who will benefit from these laws by being licensed to go after writers disagreeing with Iliana Ros-Leghtinen or Bob Menendez. The faculty at Harvard University and most good schools is endangered by such unrestrained power designed to transform our best universities and think tanks into clone-like versions of the University of Miami. ("Miami's Cubanoids Protest Against Peace!" and "Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security!")
Not everyone disagreeing with the Cubanoids is a Communist, an Al Qaeda terrorist, nor a homosexual for that matter. If it is true that Mr. Rubio is gay, incidentally, then he should be free to reveal the fact without expecting this truth to affect his political viability. How's your drug-dealing brother-in-law, "Marco"? ("Hermano': An Evening With Christopher Hitchens" and "Abrazo.")
The government will be delighted to destroy the writings and websites of sane people concerned about the dangers to our democracy from intrusive and privacy-violating government law enforcement or security efforts while protecting the sites of insane persons -- Republicans like Mr. Perry or Mr. Ginrich -- in the interest of abstinence from sex by teens and prayer in schools. None of us will be safe or free if these Republican dreams of hyper-security are realized.
Any text with the word "sex" in it will, immediately, become suspect if Ms. Ros-Leghtinen has her way. One can only shudder at the content that a person of Mr. Menendez's intellectual caliber and cultural level is likely to censor. It is said that when Senator Menendez strolls into as room his knuckles graze the ground. ("Manohla Dargis Strikes Again!" and "'The Reader': A Movie Review" then "'Revolutionary Road': A Movie Review.")
Peter King (R) from Long Island let the proverbial "cat out of the bag" when he remarked that this proposed legislation will " ... give LAW ENFORCEMENT [emphasis added!] the power to seize foreign sites ..." or to shut down U.S. sites that link to "forbidden" sites. Sites may be forbidden because of their political content which may create a danger of "conflict" or a perceived threat to our "national security." Yep, that'll be me. ("New Jersey's Feces-Covered Supreme Court," "New Jersey's Judicial and Political Whores," and, once more, "Time to End the Embargo Against Cuba.")
Journalists warn that " ... tinkering with Internet freedom leads into dangerous territory" that could result in even more on-line censorship and cybercrime. This proposed legislation -- knowing Mr. Rubio's record, I would not be surprised if his efforts were aimed, specifically, against me and other radicals -- will give hackers a new way to wreak havoc on-line by intimidating people who presume to disagree with his Right-wing views. Censorship rarely comes from the Left in America. ("Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security!" and "American Hypocrisy and Luis Posada Carriles" then "Babalu and Free Speech Too!")
"For months, it seemed as if Congress would pass an on-line piracy bill, even though its main weapons -- cutting off the financing of pirate web sites and making them harder to find -- risk censoring legitemate speech and undermining the security of the Internet. But the unmovable corporations behind those bills have run into an unstoppable force: an outcry by Internet companies led by Google and Wikipedia that culminated in an extraordinary on-line protest Wednesday." (N.Y. Times, 1-19-12, p. A22.)
As a victim of plagiarism, I ask you to please oppose this frightening attempt to deprive all of us of our freedom of speech on-line. Let us pray that American lawmakers will have the good sense to reject these proposed laws. Amen. God Bless America.
Showing posts with label Freedom for the speech we hate.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom for the speech we hate.. Show all posts
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Monday, October 3, 2011
Protests in The Wall Street Area.
Capitalism breeds and contains forms of discontent meant to reinforce the security of the system in ways that critics may not suspect.
Among the ways the system "handles" the dissent it helps to generate is to stigmatize opposition figures as immature or irresponsible, unreliable or impractical -- most of all "marginal' to the "mainstream views of good Americans."
The rationale for denying the validity of opposition claims is to make dissent appear (and become) mostly irrelevant to the workings of power, while conveying the false impression that dissent is permitted to flourish, unimpeded, and to make its way in the marketplace of ideas.
Accordingly, opponents of some of the most cruel pathologies of the system must be dismissed as trite and deluded -- this becomes difficult with people like Noam Chomsky! -- critics are insulted, in subtle and not so subtle ways, in order to avoid a direct engagement with the merits of criticisms concerning the suffering caused by ruthless capitalism or the reality of controlled dissent. ("Freedom for Mumia Abu-Jamal" and "Mumia Abu-Jamal and the Unconstitutionality of the Death Penalty.")
The first picture of Wall Street protesters in The New York Times showed only the signs held by protesters over their heads and not their faces. Protesting citizens were made into faceless "beatniks" or malcontents -- men and women without faces -- a crowd or mass of people in contrast with the brave individualists on Wall Street. Men in business suits interviewed about the protesters were shown facing the camera. (See the film, "Bob Roberts.")
What the system fears is networking among dissidents and/or too much information in the hands of the people. In the Wikileaks era, these fears are justified. Information empowers people. The Internet is a source of "people power" rightly feared by government because it is convertible into a form of power for the powerless everywhere on earth, including countries and places where the U.S. government would prefer that people remain powerless -- like the ghettos in our cities or the Third World. Maybe the censorship that I experience is based on a similar fear of "power" (advocacy skills) in the hands of an ordinary man. ("Time to End the Embargo Against Cuba.")
Almost everything is becoming a national secret and deemed crucial to national security, including statistics pertaining to our "misbehaving" economy and expenditures not yet made public, in order to prevent the people from knowing too much. This is to say nothing of the 1,000 torture photos that are still not revealed to the people by Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama says: "We all have to move on." There can be no moving on without truth, Mr. President, including the truth about the crimes for which our nation bears responsibility. Among those crimes is this week's murders of Anwar Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, essentially for speech and advocacy of views we despise. No matter what they tell you, these men were not terrorist fighters or combatants of any kind. They were advocates for an ideology and theological interpretation of Islam that we, perhaps rightly, deplore. Freedom of speech is guaranteed under the Constitution to protect unpopular speech and minority opinions, especially with regard to political questions and controversies.
If Americans residing in a foreign country can be killed by drone weapons controlled by the CIA, with total disdain for the territorial integrity of those other sovereign countries (or the lives of their citizens), then we have become a lawless state and the Constitution has been abandoned as anything other than a nice piece of parchment under glass. ("Manifesto for the Unfinished American Revolution" and "Death and Law.")
If the U.S. believes that Mr. Al-Awlaki committed crimes or participated in planning terrorist acts -- no one alleges that Mr. Khan did any such thing -- then charge him with those crimes and prove them in a court of law. These men are American citizens with the same rights as you or me. To violate their rights is, potentially, to violate YOUR rights. ("Obama says Torture is a Secret" and "A Report Card for Barak Obama.")
What the government "believes" does not, necessarily, constitute guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, at the heart of the Constitution is a single fundamental guarantee: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
Under the current claims of power by the U.S. President, Mr. Obama may order a robot bomb to be fired to kill, say, Assata Shakur, even if this means wiping out an entire neighborhood in Havana; or draft resisters in Canada, and there are some persons in Quebec fitting into that category; or expatriots in France or London, if they are deemed a "threat" for undisclosed reasons of state or for no reason of any kind that is made known to the public. Secrecy is profoundly offensive to democracy and the rule of law.
This claim of power is in clear violation of basic principles of international law as well as the U.S. Constitution. Our destruction of the regime of international law -- especially human rights laws after Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo -- makes a mockery of the efforts of distinguished Americans, such as Eleanor Roosevelt, to set in place a tentative and faltering international legal system after the Holocaust.
Dozens of conflicts that could have escalated into warfare were resolved in the International Court of Justice at the Hague. The World Court and public international legal principles are now NEEDED more than ever before. The U.S. must symbolize the rule of law to the world, not the opposite.
This new international lawlessness -- of which we have become the symbol! -- will not make us more secure since it will make it very difficult for us to obtain the compliance of other nations with international legal provisions. America's global economy depends on a predictable system of rules and regulations governing international relations -- a system that we are endangering with these excessive claims of power or legitimacy for our out-of-control bombing campaigns. The genius of the system of postmodern or late capitalism is to have the nation's first African-American president preside over the globalization of American racism and predatory capitalism, robot bombs, and targeted assassination. Along with Mr. Damon, millions of young Americans feel sadness and disappointment at the coopting of the Obama administration by conventional power and mores in Washington, D.C.:
" ... the putative aim of this imperial project is to guarantee the rule of democracy. And this should be perceived as a glaring contradiction, the pursuit of global dominance by military means rationalized by the defense and spread of America's democracy -- or should we say capitalism? -- I find this underlying commodification even more menacing than the hubris, which is obviously displayed by the Bush administration [Mr. Obama, you must do better than this!] and which many of us accept unquestioningly. The notion of democracy has been fashioned into something like a commodity that can be exported, sold to, or imposed upon entire populations [that are required to obey our will.]"
Angela Y. Davis, Abolition Democracy: Beyond Empire, Prisons, and Torture (New York: Seven Stories, 2005), pp. 84-85.
Sources:
Patrick McGeehan, "New Jersey to Pay U.S. $95 Million On Tunnels," in The New York Times, October 1, 2011, at p. A19. (What happened to all that money at the P.A.? Overtime, perhaps?)
Robbie Brown & Kim Steverson, "Drone Victim Went From American Middle Class to Waging a Media War For Al Qaeda," in The New York Times, October 1, 2011, at p. A8. (Samir Khan, 25, a U.S. citizen, was murdered by the U.S. government because he was a writer and editor of an on-line magazine advocating "jihadism." Adocacy of his views is the real reason for Mr. Abu-Jamal's continuing incarceration. If the U.S. Chief Executive can decide, secretly, that forms of expression, or any opinions, may result in assassination by the state of an American without due process of law or even notice -- regardless of whether that American resides in a foreign country! -- then we no longer have a Constitution or the rule of law. This is for the terrorists to win and democracy to lose. How much of America's current drone policy is military, so that Mr. obama cannot control it, is difficult to say. It is increasingly clear to many observers that sections of the military-industrial complex have made Mr. Obama irrelevant to decision-making in military matters. Mr. Obama cannot close the Guantanamo prison, how will he bring our troops home? Only with the "permission" of the Pentagon and the military's corporate masters.)
Kenneth W. Starr, "Open Up High Court to Cameras," in The New York Times, October 3, 2011, at p. A25. (No secrecy in the legal process, no Star Chamber in America. Turn over the torture files, Mr. Rabner. There can be no valid legal decision based on criminally fraudulent testimony and other obstructions of justice, even when such offenses are committed by the OAE. "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")
"Ruling for Open Courts," (Editorial) in The New York Times, October 3, 2011, at p. A24. (Transparency in all legal proceedings, Mr. Rabner. "No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")
Al Baker & Joseph Goldstein, "'White Shirts' of Police Department Take On Enforcer Role," in The New York Times, October 3, 2011, at p. A17. (These are America's finest young people expressing anger at the failure of the system who are being beaten. They are right to be protesting. There's no need for pepper spray. Additional protests are taking place in other cities throughout the country. More such protests will emerge during the months ahead.)
Campbell Robertson, "After Ruling Hispanics Flee an Alabama Town," in The New York Times, October 4, 2011, at p. A1. (New anti-immigrant law in Alabama is triumph of ideology over pragmatism.)
Elisabeth Provodero, "Italian Court Reverses American Students [sic.] '09 Murder Conviction," in The New York Times, October 4, 2011, at p. A1. (Right decision by Italian court with the courage to do what U.S. federal courts have failed to do in the Abu-Jamal matter.)
Adam Liptak, "As Justices Get Back to Business, Old Pro Reveals Tricks of the Trade," in The New York Times, October 4, 2011, at p. A12. (Justice Stevens resides in Florida for much of the year causing observers to wonder whether the justice is interested in the illegal drug trade, Disneyworld, or the South Beach nightlife. Golf, maybe? Why else would one go to Florida?)
Matt Apuzzo, "Lawyers Seeking NYPD's Records On Spy Programs," in The New York Times, October 4, 2011, at p. A4. (If you're a Muslim, then you can be sure that your civil rights have been suspended for national security reasons. Remember Korematsu?)
Verena Drobnik, "Wall Street Protests Gain Steam," in The Record, October 4, 2011, at p. A-5. (The first of many protests to come. About a third of the protesters are probably some kind of undercover cops.)
Among the ways the system "handles" the dissent it helps to generate is to stigmatize opposition figures as immature or irresponsible, unreliable or impractical -- most of all "marginal' to the "mainstream views of good Americans."
The rationale for denying the validity of opposition claims is to make dissent appear (and become) mostly irrelevant to the workings of power, while conveying the false impression that dissent is permitted to flourish, unimpeded, and to make its way in the marketplace of ideas.
Accordingly, opponents of some of the most cruel pathologies of the system must be dismissed as trite and deluded -- this becomes difficult with people like Noam Chomsky! -- critics are insulted, in subtle and not so subtle ways, in order to avoid a direct engagement with the merits of criticisms concerning the suffering caused by ruthless capitalism or the reality of controlled dissent. ("Freedom for Mumia Abu-Jamal" and "Mumia Abu-Jamal and the Unconstitutionality of the Death Penalty.")
The first picture of Wall Street protesters in The New York Times showed only the signs held by protesters over their heads and not their faces. Protesting citizens were made into faceless "beatniks" or malcontents -- men and women without faces -- a crowd or mass of people in contrast with the brave individualists on Wall Street. Men in business suits interviewed about the protesters were shown facing the camera. (See the film, "Bob Roberts.")
What the system fears is networking among dissidents and/or too much information in the hands of the people. In the Wikileaks era, these fears are justified. Information empowers people. The Internet is a source of "people power" rightly feared by government because it is convertible into a form of power for the powerless everywhere on earth, including countries and places where the U.S. government would prefer that people remain powerless -- like the ghettos in our cities or the Third World. Maybe the censorship that I experience is based on a similar fear of "power" (advocacy skills) in the hands of an ordinary man. ("Time to End the Embargo Against Cuba.")
Almost everything is becoming a national secret and deemed crucial to national security, including statistics pertaining to our "misbehaving" economy and expenditures not yet made public, in order to prevent the people from knowing too much. This is to say nothing of the 1,000 torture photos that are still not revealed to the people by Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama says: "We all have to move on." There can be no moving on without truth, Mr. President, including the truth about the crimes for which our nation bears responsibility. Among those crimes is this week's murders of Anwar Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, essentially for speech and advocacy of views we despise. No matter what they tell you, these men were not terrorist fighters or combatants of any kind. They were advocates for an ideology and theological interpretation of Islam that we, perhaps rightly, deplore. Freedom of speech is guaranteed under the Constitution to protect unpopular speech and minority opinions, especially with regard to political questions and controversies.
If Americans residing in a foreign country can be killed by drone weapons controlled by the CIA, with total disdain for the territorial integrity of those other sovereign countries (or the lives of their citizens), then we have become a lawless state and the Constitution has been abandoned as anything other than a nice piece of parchment under glass. ("Manifesto for the Unfinished American Revolution" and "Death and Law.")
If the U.S. believes that Mr. Al-Awlaki committed crimes or participated in planning terrorist acts -- no one alleges that Mr. Khan did any such thing -- then charge him with those crimes and prove them in a court of law. These men are American citizens with the same rights as you or me. To violate their rights is, potentially, to violate YOUR rights. ("Obama says Torture is a Secret" and "A Report Card for Barak Obama.")
What the government "believes" does not, necessarily, constitute guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, at the heart of the Constitution is a single fundamental guarantee: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
Under the current claims of power by the U.S. President, Mr. Obama may order a robot bomb to be fired to kill, say, Assata Shakur, even if this means wiping out an entire neighborhood in Havana; or draft resisters in Canada, and there are some persons in Quebec fitting into that category; or expatriots in France or London, if they are deemed a "threat" for undisclosed reasons of state or for no reason of any kind that is made known to the public. Secrecy is profoundly offensive to democracy and the rule of law.
This claim of power is in clear violation of basic principles of international law as well as the U.S. Constitution. Our destruction of the regime of international law -- especially human rights laws after Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo -- makes a mockery of the efforts of distinguished Americans, such as Eleanor Roosevelt, to set in place a tentative and faltering international legal system after the Holocaust.
Dozens of conflicts that could have escalated into warfare were resolved in the International Court of Justice at the Hague. The World Court and public international legal principles are now NEEDED more than ever before. The U.S. must symbolize the rule of law to the world, not the opposite.
This new international lawlessness -- of which we have become the symbol! -- will not make us more secure since it will make it very difficult for us to obtain the compliance of other nations with international legal provisions. America's global economy depends on a predictable system of rules and regulations governing international relations -- a system that we are endangering with these excessive claims of power or legitimacy for our out-of-control bombing campaigns. The genius of the system of postmodern or late capitalism is to have the nation's first African-American president preside over the globalization of American racism and predatory capitalism, robot bombs, and targeted assassination. Along with Mr. Damon, millions of young Americans feel sadness and disappointment at the coopting of the Obama administration by conventional power and mores in Washington, D.C.:
" ... the putative aim of this imperial project is to guarantee the rule of democracy. And this should be perceived as a glaring contradiction, the pursuit of global dominance by military means rationalized by the defense and spread of America's democracy -- or should we say capitalism? -- I find this underlying commodification even more menacing than the hubris, which is obviously displayed by the Bush administration [Mr. Obama, you must do better than this!] and which many of us accept unquestioningly. The notion of democracy has been fashioned into something like a commodity that can be exported, sold to, or imposed upon entire populations [that are required to obey our will.]"
Angela Y. Davis, Abolition Democracy: Beyond Empire, Prisons, and Torture (New York: Seven Stories, 2005), pp. 84-85.
Sources:
Patrick McGeehan, "New Jersey to Pay U.S. $95 Million On Tunnels," in The New York Times, October 1, 2011, at p. A19. (What happened to all that money at the P.A.? Overtime, perhaps?)
Robbie Brown & Kim Steverson, "Drone Victim Went From American Middle Class to Waging a Media War For Al Qaeda," in The New York Times, October 1, 2011, at p. A8. (Samir Khan, 25, a U.S. citizen, was murdered by the U.S. government because he was a writer and editor of an on-line magazine advocating "jihadism." Adocacy of his views is the real reason for Mr. Abu-Jamal's continuing incarceration. If the U.S. Chief Executive can decide, secretly, that forms of expression, or any opinions, may result in assassination by the state of an American without due process of law or even notice -- regardless of whether that American resides in a foreign country! -- then we no longer have a Constitution or the rule of law. This is for the terrorists to win and democracy to lose. How much of America's current drone policy is military, so that Mr. obama cannot control it, is difficult to say. It is increasingly clear to many observers that sections of the military-industrial complex have made Mr. Obama irrelevant to decision-making in military matters. Mr. Obama cannot close the Guantanamo prison, how will he bring our troops home? Only with the "permission" of the Pentagon and the military's corporate masters.)
Kenneth W. Starr, "Open Up High Court to Cameras," in The New York Times, October 3, 2011, at p. A25. (No secrecy in the legal process, no Star Chamber in America. Turn over the torture files, Mr. Rabner. There can be no valid legal decision based on criminally fraudulent testimony and other obstructions of justice, even when such offenses are committed by the OAE. "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")
"Ruling for Open Courts," (Editorial) in The New York Times, October 3, 2011, at p. A24. (Transparency in all legal proceedings, Mr. Rabner. "No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")
Al Baker & Joseph Goldstein, "'White Shirts' of Police Department Take On Enforcer Role," in The New York Times, October 3, 2011, at p. A17. (These are America's finest young people expressing anger at the failure of the system who are being beaten. They are right to be protesting. There's no need for pepper spray. Additional protests are taking place in other cities throughout the country. More such protests will emerge during the months ahead.)
Campbell Robertson, "After Ruling Hispanics Flee an Alabama Town," in The New York Times, October 4, 2011, at p. A1. (New anti-immigrant law in Alabama is triumph of ideology over pragmatism.)
Elisabeth Provodero, "Italian Court Reverses American Students [sic.] '09 Murder Conviction," in The New York Times, October 4, 2011, at p. A1. (Right decision by Italian court with the courage to do what U.S. federal courts have failed to do in the Abu-Jamal matter.)
Adam Liptak, "As Justices Get Back to Business, Old Pro Reveals Tricks of the Trade," in The New York Times, October 4, 2011, at p. A12. (Justice Stevens resides in Florida for much of the year causing observers to wonder whether the justice is interested in the illegal drug trade, Disneyworld, or the South Beach nightlife. Golf, maybe? Why else would one go to Florida?)
Matt Apuzzo, "Lawyers Seeking NYPD's Records On Spy Programs," in The New York Times, October 4, 2011, at p. A4. (If you're a Muslim, then you can be sure that your civil rights have been suspended for national security reasons. Remember Korematsu?)
Verena Drobnik, "Wall Street Protests Gain Steam," in The Record, October 4, 2011, at p. A-5. (The first of many protests to come. About a third of the protesters are probably some kind of undercover cops.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)