Radiolab episode on jury nullification is less bothered by state abuse of power than public desperation to fight back.

Radiolab episode on jury nullification is less bothered by state abuse of power than public desperation to fight back.

It should come as no surprise that public radio’s RADIOLAB would take government’s side against the growing grassroots effort to awaken citizens to the repressed potential of jury nullification. Any attention to the subject helps inform ordinary jurors of the power they have to stand up to the regular abuses of our judicial system. The benefit is tempered of course when liberal gatekeepers lean in with theatrics to fearmonger about anarchistic challenges to law and order and security. That’s exactly what Radiolab achieved though given plenty of material with which to have taken a more honest tack. Their program “Null and Void” aired May 12 and painted nullifiers as irrational extremists, giving a pass to the judges who purge juries and break the law by having nullifiers arrested.

I had high hopes when contacted by a producer for Radiolab in March. Our federal injunction protecting Denver jury nullification outreach efforts against an order by the Second Judicial District’s Chief Judge Michael Martinez was coming to trial in April. I imagined reporters would be sympathetic to our predicted success making our injunction permanent and the similar likeliness of our prevailing on contempt charges in a hearing which was to follow. I faciliated Radiolab’s access to Mark Iannicelli, who Denver arrested in violation of our injunction, and whose dismissed charges of felony tampering continue to be appealed by our legal adversaries. Thus far it’s a simple story of hoisting a chief justice on his own petard, using the justice system against itself, in defense of the people’s historical power as jurors.

Heicklen
But Radiolab had an alternate narrative in mind. Their story would center on a jury nullification champion who they could characterize as coming off the rails, the celebrated frequent arrestee Julian Heicklen. Septegenarian Heicklen became tired of judges warning him of arrest, despite his continued legal victories. By November 2016, Heicklen issued a manifesto of sorts, asking for armed backup to preempt a judge from making good on his renewed threat to arrest him. Heicklen posted this warning online and called it to everyone’s attention. Presumably it’s what drew Radiolab’s attention. Heicklen had put it out there, hoping to spark a John Brown-esque conflagration, I’d call it a bluff, meant to curtail the court’s continued abuse of power. It’s obvious from Heicklan’s hyperbole. I attach the significant excerpt in the notes below.

Radiolab didn’t reference this tract, nor mention their and the court’s foreknowledge of it. As they interviewed Heicklen, they asked him about his cause and even brought him to tears as he explained his distress about the injustice of the system, which continues to reinforce inequity and deny jurors their prerogative to step in its way. Then Radiolab prodded Heicklen to explain what he anticipated would happen when he showed up at the courthouse in defiance of the judge’s threat. On cue, Heicklen repeated his entreaty that supporters show up with guns to enforce his right to pass out fliers and avert the judge’s illegal threat to arrest him.

Many of us might share the elderly activist’s frustration with being habitually arrested then exhonerated, each time without apparent progress being made. Radiolab’s pretend reaction was to cue ominous silence, let the pin drop, cue indignant alarm, ostracize Heicklen, cue a spontaneous meting of Radiolab minds to elect to call the cops on Heicklen lest law enforcement personnel be shot.

Radiolab didn’t call the Chief Judge Frederick J. Lauten to question the irregularity of his repeating an illegal threat. How absolutely insane for a judge, already proven to be in the wrong, to keep asserting his authority to have a citizen falsely arrested?

When Heicklen showed up to the courthouse, with a friend, both without weapons of any kind, and without the backup support of “Tyranny Fighters” he’d hoped to mobilize, Heicklen was arrested for the more serious charges involving threats.

Radiolab may or may to have exacerbated Heicklen’s arrest. They certainly took credit for it, which is the least they could do for having exploited Heicklen as their straw man extremist.

Because Radiolab makes little effort to conceal their liberal bourgeois elitism. FIJA, the Fully Informed Jury Association was founded, according to Radiolab, in a Montana “bunghole”, which they qualify, they are entitled to call Helena, the capitol of Montana, because one of the show’s producers is from Montana.

Wolverine
You might ask, what’s Wolverine got to do with this? Anyone who’s read Ariel Dorfman knows better than to bring superheroes into political discourse. Radiolab didn’t know how better to distinguish between a citizen’s right, as proscribed by the Bill of Rights, and a power, something grown from common law. Whatever, they’re wrong. Juries are guaranteed by the sixth amendment, now commonly understood to be “a jury of your peers.”

Radiolab never uses that phrase, it’s too everyman. But they do riff ad nauseum on Wolverine, who’s a superhero with superpowers, namely CLAWS, which for Radiolab described this aberrant power that jury nullification advocates are promoting. The public as beast, and mutant power threatening elitists like a werewolf’s claws. Someone adds, as a further irrelevance, that Wolverine’s real superpower is regenerative, the power to heal but nevermind. They say that, and it’s the only trivia that actually does apply to jury nullification. Radiolab autistic savants.

They recorded Mark Iannicelli in front of the Denver courthouse, that was our single consolation!

It’s no surprise that Radiolab takes the government’s side against the public’s growing inclination to “burn it down.” Radiolab got great quotes from Mark, but chose to demonize other jury nullification pamphleteers who were so frustrated with being arrested that wanted to deter future arrests with guns.

By the show’s end, the white privileged NPR broadcasters feel more comfortable with the law in the hands of “unelected, white” judges over inexpert jurors described as “twelve random jerk-offs from the street.” They’re taking about your constitutionally protected jury of your peers.

Hopefully listeners will glean the great information offered by this piece and nullify Radiolabs’s privileged condescension.

NOTES:
1. Julian Heicklen’s post of November 24:

Hi Tyranny Fighters:

Orlando Courthouse: I plan to be at the Orange County Courthouse in Orlando, FL distributing Fully Informed Jury information from 10:30 am – 1:30 pm, unless arrested earlier, on Monday-Wednesday, December 5-8, 2016. All of you are invited (urged) to join me. Bring your guns. I have requested protection from the Florida Militia, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Governor of Florida. None of them responded to my requests. Copies of the letters to the Department of Homeland Security and the governor were sent to the Clerk of the Orange County Court and to you in my previous report.

I have not received replies from any of these people. However I have received a letter from Frederick J. Lauten, Chief Judge, Ninth Judicial Cicuit of Georgia. Here is his letter:

Dear Mr. Heicklen:

A copy of your letter to Rick Scott dated October 13, 2016, was given to me. In your letter, you stateit is your intent to “distribute flyers regarding the duties of jurors and witnesses at criminal trials” at the Orange County Courthouse during th first week of December.” This letter is a reminder that such conduct continues to be proscribed on courthouse grounds under Administrative Order 2011-03 which governs expressive conduct taward summoned jurors. Enclosed is a copy of Adminiustrative Order 2011-03 for your perusal.

As you know, this Administrative Order is constituional as the Fifth District Court of appeal had “no difficulry upholding Administrative Order No. 2011–03 as reasonable, viewpoint neutral regulation….” Schmidter & Heicklen v. State, 103 So. 3d 2663,270 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)(a copy of which is enclosed). This Court, as well as the Orange Cpounty Sheriff, qill enforce the provisions of Admionistrative Order No. 2011-03 to ensure the fair and orderly conduct of jury trials and to prevent dissruptions or interference with that basic right.

Based on the Administrative Order’s continuing validity, you may wish to reconsider your intended course of action and find alternative means in which to disseminate your message. If you intend on distributing materials to jurors, you will be issued a trespass notice and if you then remain on courthouse grounds, you could be arrested for trespass.

Sincerely,

Frederick J. Lauten

Chief Judge

____________________________________

Unfortunately there seems to be a disagreement between the Florida court and the United States Federal Court. I was one of the appellants in the Florida case. The decision was based on lies and incorrect information introduced by the state attorneys. The judges should have know this, since I carefully pointed out the errors, but they did not care. They had made up their minds before hearing the case.

Previously I was arrested 5 times for distributing this literature at the the U. S. District Court in Manhattan, NY. I was arrested and charged with jury tampering. After 17 months of trial, Judge Kimba Wood declared that distributing this literature was not jury tampering because I did not discuss any case with a juror sitting on that trial. She dismissed my case. Her decision is at: http://constitution.org/jury/pj/10-cr-01154-KMW_order.pdf This decision was published in many journals. The NY Times publication is at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/nyregion/indictment-against-julian-heicklen-jury-nullification-advocate-is-dismissed.html

Other publications can be found at: http://search.myway.com/search/GGmain.jhtml?p2=%5EC73%5Exdm007%5ETTAB02%5Eus&ptb=304CD70B-562C-491B-9E0F-EEEA96D81532&n=782b17fd&ind=&tpr=hpsb&trs=wtt&cn=us&ln=en&si=CJSjz-LK7s4CFdgQgQodEmkJvA&brwsid=343148da-648b-46c2-8171-a9e312ac5776&searchfor=Jury%20nullification%20case%20of%20Julian%20Heicklen&st=tab

I was invited to Harvard University Law School to give a lecture on my case. Also I have been informed that my case is being taught to all students at Yale Law School. Presumably it is being taught elsewhere as well.

Currently I distribute the same flyers at both state and federal courthouses around the country. None of them arrest me. Three of these courthouses are state courthouses. They are in Fort Lauderdale, Fl; Pittsburgh, PA (last week); and Newark, NJ. The federal courthouses this year have been in Fort Lauderdale, FL; Newark, NJ; Manhattan, NY; Palo Alto, CA; Pittsburgh, PA (last week) and San Jose, CA; The state courthouses do not approach me. The federal courthouse Homeland Security officers at federal courts all threatened to arrest me until I told them to check it with a judge. They did, and none of them made an arrest.

December 5, 2016 will be a critical day in the history of the United States. I will appear at the Orange County Courthouse, 425 N. Orange Avenue, Orlando, FL and distribute “Nullification by Jury” flyers on the public sidewalk leading from the parking lot to the courthouse. I am asking all Tyranny fighters and anyone else to join me armed with loaded guns to shoot any courthouse employee or officer of the court (i.e. guards, Orlando police, State police, Sheriffs, or lawyers) that approach within 15 feet of me. One of 4 things can happen:

Neither the court personnel, the Tyranny Fighters, nor the press will appear. That will be the smoothest, but dullest, situation.

The Court officers only will appear and arrest me.

The Tyranny Fighters only will appear and protect me.

Both the Court officers and the Tyranny Fighters will appear. The gun battle for the return of a free country with a democratic republic will occur.

I am irrelevant. The future of the United States will be determined by the others or by you. Either we will continue the route to the gas chambers as described in the attached document, or we shall backtrack to a democratic republic. In either case I will have died by then.

The choice is yours—Julian

Letter to Michael Moore, indelible hero, retrograde Occupy Obama supporter

Dear Michael,
I write you as a longtime, enthusiastic fan, and please pardon me if the deference and affection I’d like to convey have been overcome by my shock at your recent emails. My question may sound rhetorical, but I would really like to know: what the hell compels you to shill once again for Barack Obama? Beside the campaign pablum.

When you visited Occupys across the country, including ours in Denver, I defended you to friends who dismissed you as the usual shepherd’s crook for the Democratic Party. No no no I assured them, he gets it. But did you? We weren’t protesting eight years of Bush followed by an ineffectual Obama, we were protesting Obama and the economic system under his watch. We weren’t protesting the Democratic Party being insufficiently adversarial to the Republicans, we were protesting the corporate party system, the Democrat face being the more two-faced.

Most significantly, while our anger was vented at Wall Street, the repression we were dealt, and which dissenters continue to suffer, came directly from the agencies of President Obama.

Yet now you presume to accuse the same audience of cynicism about the election, and urge us to support Democrat Obama, the wolf in sheep’s clothing, out of fear of the Big Bad Wolf, as usual Republican.

Maybe as the election draws to a climax you’ve become privy to an unseen power struggle you need to tell us about. Because it’s at odds with your earlier giddiness with Occupy. Then your enthusiasm was unclouded by your pragmatism today.

Please do tell, because Mitt Romney seems more a sheep in wolf’s clothing to me. He’s a cartoonish straw man villain spouting wedge-issue threats to scare us crows from lighting upon the real corporate agenda. The banking kleptocracy doesn’t care about gay/women’s rights except to restrict all rights, the easier to pursue its grand thefts. If the GOP had wanted to pick a winner, I’m certain the average doctor or teacher you come across everyday would have made a more suited contender.

Could the GOP have chosen a greedier more callous thug, who didn’t pay his taxes, tainted by so much scandal that a new one emerged every day to titillate and offend? Obama had to sluff the first presidential debate because they’d chosen such an unbelievable, lame duck opponent that the ratings threatened to tank.

When the Neocon Washington Post endorsed President Obama, I knew the stooge from the ringer. The empire would be screwed without Obama to placate its victims. As Glen Ford argues, Obama may appear the lesser evil, but he’s the more effective evil. He’ll sell what arrogantly-white Romney never could: more war, austerity, privatization, fossil fuel. Without Obama, the global populace would push back.

I don’t favor a Romney win, but for another reason than you. A Romney presidency would mean another cycle of voter outrage, with MoveOn once again rallying Democrats, as if they were any different, and you probably among them.

But the election is not even going to be close. The six billion spent on this election was six billion earned by the media by pretending the polling was tied, to extort more spending by both sides. Meanwhile horseless statistician Nate Silver is vilified by television pundits because he’s calculated that surprise, Obama has a comfortable lead over his bogeyman idiot challenger.

Yes I know multitudes who support Mitt Romney. Four years ago they got nowhere with John McCain, because the juggernaut of empire was already up to full steam with Obama. I confess I didn’t know it then, and fretted a GOP win like everybody else, but it didn’t keep me from voting for Cynthia McKinney against war and climate change.

You began your letter by saying “I get it” but then assume we non-voters are motivated by apathy or weariness. You’re the one who sounds worn down. Bummer.

Yours,
Eric

Abajo y a la Izquierda esta el Corazon

Abajo y a la Izquierda esta el Corazon

OCCUPY COLO. SPRINGS will be occupying the 3rd UCCS OWS symposium this Wednesday to challenge the straw man argument that Latinos are underrepresented in the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Nationwide, OWS may be white and middle class, but in the context of the outcry for global democracy, isn’t OWS a bandwagon cargo cult of the Global South?

“United For Global Change” is Madison Ave dilution of “Global Democracy” cry. Oct 15 not for Obameaningless change

15 Octubre, Global Democracy, now subverted to United For Global ChangeUNITED FOR GLOBAL CHANGE certainly smacks of the meaningless slogan that swept President Hope to power. My guess is that this is Advertizer Omnicom’s contract PR redesign to subvert the worldwide Global Democracy movement sparked by Spain’s Indignant rebels and the Arab Spring. Original promotional materials called for GLOBAL DEMOCRACY, which meant something obviously, but might confuse Americans who think their illusion of democracy is enough, spread via Pax Americana. Global “Change” is a straw man open to pundits critical of unspecific demands, “Democracy” less so.

Omnicom is just a guess, they’re the outfit who saved McDonalds’ skin with “I’m lovin it” and who was contracted by the USG to sell Obama’s Wars to the international public. I forgot who won all the Addy in 2008 for the ad campaign of the year, brand “Obama.”

United For Global ChangeInternational demonstrations scheduled for October 15th are more than protests in solidarity for Occupy Wall Street in NYC. OCT15 is a call for DEMOCRACIA REAL YA, which I’m sorry, doesn’t translate to REAL *CHANGE* NOW! What’s change anymore but an Obamaesque meaningless platitude? Dispiriting is the infusion they’ve intended.

“United for Global Change?” Yeah, I don’t think so. First it’s hard to swallow that “change” translates more universally than “democracy.” Second, President Obama’s neo-grassroots orgs are obviously trying to seed anticipation of 2012 with a meme of international support. We Are Change, Be the Change, Democrats For Change, Democratic Change, Change That Works, Change Happens –whatever. In your dreams Democratic party. The world isn’t taking to the street to settle for an Obama Nothing Revolution.

Wanna bet that this Global Change job was commissioned by something akin to Change International, funded by a USAID affiliate, dispersing funds meant to promote CIA-styled Democratic Astroturf pro-US counterrevolutionaries in regions not yet sufficiently subservient to US multinational extraction industries?

So what if an establishment vanguard has succeeded in rebranding OCT 15 for placebo consumption. By all means please join the marches Saturday, regardless your unlike-minded companions. The vocabulary will be mixed, the media is already preparing headlines using the approved slogan makeover, but fear not, the rest of the world is marching for real Democracy and everyone knows it.

Michele Bachmann is a corn dog

Michele Bachmann eats a foot-long corn-dog at the Iowa State FairI am so sorry all you Dem Chicken Littles, but GOP candidate Michele Bachmann is not going to depose your precious Recidivist Obama. She’s a straw man and as desperate a bogeyman as the corporate bad-cop party can muster. Bachmann was fleeing a contentious audience at the Iowa Straw Poll but PAUSED because who can resist the obviously ribald photo-op with a foot-long corn-dog? And she gave her gay hubby the first bite. This ensured press, take your pick, salacious or God-awful horrific, whatever, from media followers who look to the vacuous debutante for inspiration. Stupid? Or savvy as a FOX-coached bimbo?

First they came for the Communists, but we don’t like Communists…

First they came for the Communists,?
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
?and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,?
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me?
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
 
These famous words float an admonition, but isn’t it more likely an adage? They describe the passivity which permitted Hitler’s abuses, but could apply to the ordinary manifestation of totalitarianism. Has human nature yet learned except in hindsight? First they came for the Communists, but we all spoke out, the end. That’s because the big lie is “they.” Try substituting “we” and you see the tsunamic inevitability of mob ethnocentrism. First we came for the Communists, Trade Unionists, and Jews, then him, then her, pure fun until it was me. Oops.

This quote, spoken by German priest Martin Niemoll, features prominently in the US Holocaust Museum in Washington DC. When I saw it I made a note to look up what seemed a strange discrepancy. Curiously in their version, the first group to be targeted are Socialists, not Communists. I say curiously, because I wouldn’t bring it up if I didn’t think the distinction was very unfortunate.

There are several variations of this “poem” because Niemoll repeated it in many sermons and never wrote it down. Asked about it through the years, sometimes he included Jehovah’s Witnesses and gays, and omitted others. Never, however, did he fail to mention Communists, and never were they not the first.

Does it make a difference? If you consider that Communists are the beasts of burden for Socialism, yes. If there’s a boogieman of Capitalism, it’s not the straw man Socialist, it’s the grassroots, proletariat Communist. Socialists are the intellectuals. The far less palatable working class are the Communists. How unfortunate to scrub Niemoll’s warning of its authentic historical detail. The Nazis first came for the Communists.

Bed bugs have made a comeback in the lives of the American poor, lending an uncomfortable new relevance to a folk bedtime salutation. Imagine if we said “Goodnight, don’t let the butterflies bite.” That carries no folk wisdom whatever.

And so how perverse that a traditionally maligned group such as the Jews, firmly ensconcing themselves on Niemoll’s list, decide another unpopular group needn’t the same protection. Doesn’t it defeat the very threat the old priest wanted us to think about? Yes, each group is meant to represent people in general, universality. But it doesn’t work to say bunnies, or amiable characteristics, because then the prospect doesn’t make sense, our youngsters are made vigilant facing a direction from which an attack never comes.

If the exclusion of Communists was a concession to the perennial Red Scare climate of the US capitol, it sadly confirms why Martin Niemoll’s warning won’t find purchase. Even in a Holocaust Museum dedicated to “never again” coming after people based on their social group, some don’t care about looking out for the most vulnerable.

Imagine Niemoll’s dictum as paraphrased for the Hindu castes. Imagine the Brahmins reciting it, leaving off the untouchables.

Rand Paul is a straw man, a scary one. Chicken Littles are tilting at scarecrow

Progressive voices are a-twitter about keeping tea party buffoon Rand Paul in ascendance. The joke I suppose is that he makes the Democrats look good. Obviously you need to look to further rightist extremes to keep that up. Laughs at Sarah Palin’s expense only enhanced her shadow. It got Obama elected, holding voters at “change we can believe in” as opposed to the change we needed. Boogie-persons Palin and Paul are not only straw man opponents, they’re scarecrows.

Is Barack Obama Sarah Palin in lipstick?

Is Barack Obama Sarah Palin in lipstick?

Barack Palin morphIt’s tempting to brush off the ol’ BIGOTRY IN LIPSTICK sign for Sarah Palin’s whistle stop in Colorado Springs tonight. Palin and her fans make for easy laughs, but with President Obama unmasked this week as Cheney’s new War Czar, who is Sarah “Plain and Small” but the 2012 GOP straw man to ensure Obama’s reelection? I have no interest in joining the Democrats in play-crying Wolf over Scary Palin.

A more effective approach might be to tar Sarah Palin with the Obama deception, as for example, the ugly side of the same Obama coin. SARAH PALIN IS OBAMA IN BOOGIEMAN LIPSTICK.

Come election 2012, how is anyone to mount a viable third party candidate with the specter of Sarah Palin haunting a weakened Obama? It’ll be the same old excuse for circling the wagons around the lesser of evils, the horrors being unthinkable to risk splitting the “progressive” vote. Of course, if anything is to be accomplished by way of reform and change, a non-Democrat, non-corporate candidate will have to do it, that is if you entrust electoral politics with any remaining hope at all.

You’d think it wouldn’t take an example as extreme as Sarah Palin to make President Obama look smart. The comparison may be an indication of how much ground Obama wants to give himself in his plans to disappoint us.

We cannot afford universal health care

Obama faced friendly fire at his health care town hall, and so fared well telling the audience, what–is that all you got? He dispatched the teabag canards until he had seemingly exhausted the surrogate-public’s straw man objections.

The issue of a single payer system came up. Not from the mouth of an advocate, but framed by a critic, a Republican (“I don’t even know why I’m here.”), who wanted to confront the president about a his past public endorsement of a single payer remedy. Thus, he loaded the question with the assumption that such an naive suggestion must be repudiated.

The president did not denounce a single payer ideal, but instead explained his new moderate view: America wasn’t ready, the country would be destabilized by a sudden changeover to universal health care. Obama gave the example of someone accustomed to health coverage now having to deal with another office, and another set of paperwork.

Changing insurers happens all the time to individuals of course, who learn they’ve been dropped, or whose policies lapse, or who lose their jobs and with it their coverage. Of course that sudden shock is amplified by the uncertainty of finding another insurance policy at all. And then, the other shock when the new premium is three-fold increase.

Switching to a universal insurance plan would introduce no uncertainty, or sticker shock. But certainly the president is talking about the shock to the insurance industry.

Their jobs would be gone tomorrow.

The drawback to immediately trimming the 30% of medical expenses which go to insurance companies, is that those livelihoods will be shattered. The insurance companies are not just about the quarter-billion dollar a year CEOs. There are reps and adjusters and office staff behind the people who deny you disbursements for your health expenses. Not many of them are going to be needed by the expanded Medicare offices. So their jobs are gone.

And the insurance companies advertise on the major media outlets, and hire lobbyists, talking heads and teabag mobs. Universal Medicare isn’t going to need any of those to sway its public beneficiaries. Except to encourage preventive health and wellness.

Insurance companies finance political campaigns. No, our system couldn’t stand the shock of rocking that boat.

Most of all, I’m fairly certain America cannot afford universal health care because it cannot weather the shock of bringing the populace to better health. America has been killing its citizens with far too systematic efficiency to make an about turn. The American public is too far gone down the path of cancer, obesity, diabetes, and neuro-pathological disorder to be turned back affordably. A boat floats on its own with very little effort, but one half-sunk requires almost endless human resources.

In addition to lost insurance jobs, would be lost medical jobs and malfeasance jobs.

When the government is paying all the medical bills, auditors would have to seek out where it was also paying for the pathogens, to eliminate the redundancy. An auditor will spot the guys putting sawdust in the flour, and the guy hired to sift the impurities from the flour. If it stops the first, it can lay off the second.

Where we can eradicate the poison, we can forgo antidote.

America will have to reexamine its food supply, and its industrial byproducts, and its environment despoilers, with an eye to stop their fouling the national health.

That would be too much a shock to the system. I agree.

Is Roland Burris a GOP Senate ringer?

Is Roland Burris a GOP Senate ringer?

Roland BurrisIs there more to senator-aspirant Roland Burris being turned away in DC, than political theater? Illinois governor Blagojevich was caught asking for payola to decide the appointment. Did he get the money? Without asking, the DC Dems are acting like the unassuming Mr. Burris is the pay-to-play golden ticket holder. I suspect the undistinguishing features which allay our suspicions about the septuagenarian may be the very traits which interest his sponsors.

In boxing, it’s called a ringer.

While some Democrats are content to ask the would-be junior senator if he’d consent to be a modest placeholder until the 2010 election, I think that’s exactly what he’s intended to be, but not for the Dems. Burris is a placeholder for the GOP. The uncharismatic Burris, regular-loser of elections, is meant to remove any incumbent advantage the Democrats would hope to cultivate in the next two years. Burris would waste that opportunity, then face a Republican challenger in the next election and lose.

Who did you think was offering big bucks for the senate seat? Was someone going to pay multi-millions to put Jesse Jackson in Washington? If the Dems had dibs on the party affiliation of Barack Obama’s old office anyway, why was Blagojevich expecting that an ally would pay millions to install one particular Democrat over another?

Who would have been offering the millions, except bidders dismayed at Blagojevich’s nonpartisan disloyalty. Maybe the Democratic Party’s insufficient coffers, and the projected Republican gained foothold, is what drew colleagues to unleash investigators to nail the turncoat sumbitch politician.

Though no one’s asking such questions, Burris cuts short the proforma inquiries, about his links to the governor’s alleged graft, with mock surprise that his personal record might invite suspicion. Except, what is Burris’s public record but a trail of failed elections? He has no accomplishments other than the elections in which he played straw man or spoiler and he lost every one. Perhaps he has always been an innocent pawn. It would seem pretty damn racist to suggest the diminutive black man has never been accomplice to the scheme, even now.

No one dares be seen critical of Burris, who would be the only African American in the Senate. And the media is not about to spoil the GOP fix. Burris is in, and apparently it’s all legal. And inevitable. The best legal opinions the media want to parade before us explain that because the governor is still in office, his appointment of Burris is legitimate. Even though the crime is the very act which installed Burris.

Does that make sense to you? A bank robber gets to keep the bank’s money until he’s faced a jury of his peers? A court order could secure the monies for the bank, lest the accused gamble it all in Vegas, or score big, and return with a better legal team.

An injunction could prevent Blagojevich and partners from enjoying the fruits of their crime, until the mess is untangled. But the corporate media and the GOP have put the Democrats in the difficult position of turning Burris away.

Is your hate of Hillary all your own?

Stuart RisdenIf you’re indulging yourself gloating about Hillary’s dashed presidential aspirations, you might consider who’s cheering with you. As the battle for the nomination dragged on, Ms. Clinton faced near universal scorn, whipped up gleefully by all of media-dom. When has the media reported anything that you’ve discovered was truthful? Anything?
 
(Man’s traditional response to threatening women, midwives or healers? They’re witches!)

Unless you have been keeping in touch with Hillary Clinton personally, I would hesitate to say you don’t know if she has been represented objectively. Unless you’ve seen her in person, can you really say if her head’s the size of a pumpkin? Have you seen, heard, felt pangs of intuition that weren’t spun by the waves of an electronic transmission fashioned over an editor’s desk?

I’ve become rather suspicious that Ms. Clinton may have posed the biggest threat to the powers that be, to the beltway and the corporate media, and that’s why she was painted with such dastard derision.

Maybe?

The unanimity and height of disrespect shown in the catty ridicule made of Hillary has an identical scent really of an earlier smear campaign, the ulterior motives now well documented, against the embarrassment “beyond words” of Hillary’s First Husband, Bill.

President Clinton was too centrist for my taste, but it turns out he made some inroads for the people even despite being mostly thwarted by the corporate multinationals and the bankers.

Was the combined Clinton battle experience going to be crucial facing the still predominantly neoconservative-crony Washington establishment? The DC heavyweights are criminals and profiteers to the last, do we expect them to invite a reformer into the White House?

As much as they hated the Clintons, and Hillary Clinton in her own right, the power brokers appear to be smitten by Barack Obama. What does that say to you?

Some think it’s a sign that everyone’s ready for change. Some think the Republicans are content to let a Democrat be left to pick up Bush’s pieces. A friend of mine quotes T. S. Eliot:

“An election is coming. Universal peace is declared and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry.”

I think the vociferous appetite the Neocons have shown in devouring America’s treasury at the expense of the middle class indicates they don’t intend to leave even a piece until it’s in their bank account. The bad guys are not through. In these days of irradiation, they do not need their poultry kept live.

The media favoritism of Barack over Hillary says to me, they’ll abide a black man on their porch because they have no intention of letting him inside. They can serenade him even, confident they can excuse their ultimate inhospitality on the Appalachian problem. If American voters prove more progressive than they want, Diebold’s blackboxes will smite our great last hope.

Republican McCain has been criticized by none of the press. With Hillary out of the way, the press has already started to unleash on Obama, and will now be now free to lavish the erstwhile witch with the affection they now display for her term-limited husband.

America’s masters needed one heck of a ringer to face the Bush blow-back. A presumptive presumptuous first black president will prove just the straw man they need. Even the most cynical voter will not be surprised that white America is not ready to elect a black president.

All that hoopla about Obama needing to distance himself from his pastor’s unpatriotic rants was very telling. Do you remember Reverend Wright’s chief focus? God Damn America, yes, but his chief refrain? America’s racism. White America doesn’t want to believe it is racist, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

Apparently racism is gone if we want it gone. To decry its persistence is to break the self-hypnotic spell and bring racism back. Blame the messenger apparently.

It is not racist to predict that Obama faces entrenched racism. It would be swell to think America is otherwise, and the media would love for us to believe it. But they and the lobbyists and their owners Big Pharma, Big Agra, Big Oil, the financiers and the war machine are banking on McCain.

Apple and the PC image

I saw the actor who plays “PC” in the Mac versus PC commercials in a bit part on a television show. Odd, I thought, that he would be permitted a role outside of his corporate representative commitment.
Apple's popular PC and Mac mascots
Usually mascots like the Maytag repairman, the Dunkin’ Donuts and Frito-Lay guys, even Juan Valdes and Mr. Goodwrench, sign exclusive contracts to prevent them from diluting their brand identity with competing entertainment images. What distinguishes Apple’s PC guy is that he is a defamation of himself. The Mac strategy seems positively libelous.

It could be that since “PC” doesn’t represent an Apple product, whatever other screen time the actor got would matter little to Apple. But let’s not be so naive. More probably Apple has a say over which acting gigs PC can take. As long as PC portrays a feeble, emasculated frump like his Mac versus PC persona, Apple’s campaign is extended beyond its ads, right into the world of television. But is that playing fair? Can you create a straw man to represent your competitor, just to take the Mickey out of him at every opportunity, outside of the scripted ads, even in real life possibly. PC in real life could be painted to be quite the Wally if Apple if so desired.

The brilliance too of Apple’s singular circumstance is that “PC” represents no actual corporate rival. PC is not an IBM anymore, he’s part Windows, part Intel, and part PC clone maker. Microsoft would have to join Dell, HP, Gateway, eMachine, et al, to sue Apple for defamation.

Microsoft is trying some of Apple’s medicine pitting the Zune against the iPod, using representatives cleverly similar to the original actors, but my favorite adaptation of the me-better-than-you genre was Nintendo’s fun with Sony.

John Edwards for Santy Claus

Ho ho ho. John Edwards declares himself a candidate for aught eight, counting no doubt on the votes of Virginians who haven’t been told about Santa Claus.
 
John Edwards, half of the Kerry-Edwards day-after concession speech givers will, instead of doing his upmost to get to the bottom of vote tampering, vote fraud, voter intimidation and obstruction in the 2004 election, will instead ask the Barnum and Bailey crowd to throw their votes at him again.

In a carefully stage-managed photo-op in a black-Ammerican’s backyard, in New Orlean’s still neglected Ninth Ward (for whom he did what exactly?), Edward’s voiced the same middle of the road platitudes which -we’re told- endeared him to the American public the first time. “Let me be clear.” “Let there be no misunderstanding.” Ad infinitum, sin explicity. The Republican strategy in Iraq is wrong, no mention of what could be right. But he wants it firmly understood, so there’s no misunderstanding, it’s so clear it doesn’t need saying, know what I mean, nudge, nudge?

This is the straw man technique used by the Republican yellow press. Put a spotlight on the weakest opponent and pretend he’s the best they got.

No John Edwards, if you’re any bit the patriot at all, step aside and let somebody lead the Democrats to reclaim justice for the people. We do not need your poison pill of Benedict Arnoldry. You are a baby-faced son of a bitch God-damned traitor opportunist carpert bagger fraudster’s shill. Confess now or go down with the rest of them. Fall all the harder for the extra effort your treachery presents.

You could have contested the 2004 vote, if nothing else to bring to light the rigging of American elections by the well-placed Republican voting officials and their black-box contractor cohorts. You could have spent some of the Democratic Party funds earmarked for the fight instead of capitulating and forcing appalled Americans throw in even more contributions to aid the likes of Bev Harris and independent party candidates challenge the voting irregularities. Instead you handed George Bush the keys to the hen house, with already thousands burning inside it, and slithered away to surface another day, Christmas 2006, to ask for a chance to do it again. Fat chance Mr. Edwards, no promotion for you, you’ve been very bad elf.

Why ask Bush?

The media are showing themselves for the shills that they are. The story would seem to be President Bush’s ever lower approval ratings. Yet the media are working overtime to quote bush left and right. As if to prove the adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
 
Why we looking to Bush for any answers at all? Greenland is melting yet Bush denies global warming. Iraq is disintegrating into fearsome indescriminate violence yet Bush calls it victory.
 
Bush sets up a straw man argument by saying he can understand why Americans are disheartened. Try disgusted. Explain that.

Is this signature Rove spin?

Protesters looking too tidy
Short hair, oxford shirts,
not one extraneous banner,
did someone co-opt
this Move-on action?

Looks more like astroturf
than grass roots.

God bless ’em. The Republicans have joined MoveOn. Next time let’s see if they’d like to pose for the cameras with signs which explain exactly WHAT IS the Plame coverup. It’s one thing to tailor the message, it’s another to restrict it to a vocabulary which spells nothing.

And it is hard to believe that authentic MoveOn members would bother to get out of bed to call merely for Rove’s being FIRED. What is this? If we can reassemble this crew, let’s see them call for Rove’s prosecution, or better yet, hanging.

Can you spot any Republican ops who couldn’t stay out of the pictures?

I suspect that Rove is after two things: first, set up a straw man to suggest that he was behind the Plame leak, before the evidence is out, the sooner to dismiss the accusation as old news. Second, and most important, offer up his own ass, perhaps an irresistible target, to lure Democrats away from calling attention to the DOWNING STREET MEMO.

Republicans didn’t trust Kerry

Doesn’t Kerry’s prompt concession kinda make him look like a SHILL? He and the Democratic party hijacked the grassroots progressive movement and sold us down the river.

Holding off a concession might have lead to questions about the vote suppression and the legitimacy of our election methods. Why was anyone forced to wait for ten hours for example?! Instead Kerry concedes and tells us how much he’s been touched by all our support.

There is no Democratic party. We all owe Ralph Nader profuse apologies and we need another party, if not a military coup. If we could not unseat an idiot-chimp with only blunders to his credit, with a record turnout of new voters, there is something wrong with our electoral system.

This was a media coup d’etat, a rigged election, a fascist putsch featuring a straw man to pretend to lead our cause. Bush is a despotic moron. Kerry is despicable.

I had as much hope as anyone that Kerry might have lead our nation into brighter times. He seemed earnestly anti-war when he testified before congress in 1971. He seemed to champion the best causes in his many years in the Senate. I excused his centrism as necessary to getting elected. And I figured that his wife, a billionaress, would not have married Kerry if he was only a common profiteer. What would they need with more money? Indeed I thought they both wanted to change the world.

I was wrong. Nader was right. In the early debates Kucinich, Sharpton, even Dean, were the only chances we had.