To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Paul Street's Blog » Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Paul Street's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/paulstreet
Bio:         Paul Street is an independent radical-democratic policy researcher, journalist, historian, and speaker based in Iowa City, Iowa, and Chicago, Illinois.&nbs... (More)

All Street Blogs

Recent Street Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books

Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Paul Street at Jan 20, 2006

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
The title of this post is from an old U.S. working-class slogan meant to capture the disproportionate legal influence exercised by people of means relative to those without the financial resources to hire good lawyers and work the political and judicial systems to their advantage: "Money Talks, Bullshit Walks." Today in the newspapers we... learned about the steep sentences handed down against a Las Vegas couple who pleaded guilty to planting a severed human finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili. Jamie Placencia got 12 years and 4 months. Anna Ayala got 9 years. As "everybody knows" by know, Placencia and Ayala got the finger from someone who'd been in an industrial accident and and planted it in a bowl of chili as part of an attempt to extort a big payday out of the Wendy's Corporation. According to Wendy's, their glorious obesity-generating business was hurt by the terrible stunt, which reached its apex when Ayala went on ABC's "Good morning America" to up the ante. Apparently workers at the specific Wendy's outlet in question lost $170,000 in wages. Pretty nasty stuff. But 12 and 9 years, respectively? Bernie Ebbers and a few others aside, that's less time than is generally meted out to people who defraud employees, retirees, and investors out of billions of dollars and who thereby truly damage the lives of significant masses of people. I'd like to see a comparative sentencing analysis on that. I'm curious to find out if any meatpacking executives have served any time for their industry's notorious evasion of occupational safety standards, a crime that generates more than a few, well, severed fingers that never make it into the public eye. More to the point of this post, if the admittedly creepy Placencia and Ayala stunt garners 21 years in America (the self-declared land of class- and color-blind justice), then what is the appropriate amount of time behind bars for lying to Congress and the American people to get them to support a bloody war against a nonexistent threat? Masses of people have been losing more than a finger in the imperial quagmire bowl that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney et al. have cooked up in Iraq. As New York Times columnist Bob Herbert notes today, "tens of thousands of men, women, and children are tragically dead because of the war in Iraq, which was launched from a monstrous structure of deceit" (Herbert, "Who will Stand Up for the Constitution?", p. A27). Meanwhile, it's worth adding, "defense" and collateral service and "reconstruction" corporations (e.g. Halliburton) have been making a financial killing on the deceptively sold war, whose version of the severed finger was the curiously AWOL weapons of mass destruction. As I've said before, impeachment (for a useful legal case made for impeachment of Bush II, see Elizabeth Holtzman, "The Impeachment of George W. Bush," in the latest The Nation [January 30, 2006. pp. 11-18]) OUGHT to be the least of Dubya's worries. Imagine if Placencia and Ayala had tried to pull off their scam and had never even produced their actual finger of alleged mass financial destruction? Money talks, BU**SH** walks.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (26)

Z

      I had an

By Anonymous, Anonymous at Sep 08, 2006 15:59 PM

      I had an attourney mess up a lawsuit. Many attourneys have told me this. The problem is the amount of money needed up front made it impossible to seek justice. For an attourney to abandon the case and leave state he must have been bought. If I were rich this would not have happend, as the attourney would have known he would have been persued and sued for damages. little dogs cant shit on big dogs. My point: So long as we keep voting for presidents who are rich we can forget fair. Now if a blue collar could get backed by enough little people and run for president we may see a change. only somone who has lived a hard life will take a look at the little people. Somone who has never financialy struggled will never sincerely understand the impact of higher property tax and gas price and the importance of moderation.

Reply this comment

Person

hey Victor

By Kissenger, Clark at Feb 09, 2006 11:57 AM

Cyrano

 

You bring up an interesting point.  How do we educate the Great Unwashed Masses(carefully checking under my arms)?  We have here a unified block of Economically Developed Nations who dominate the world, led by the USA.  How do we get the message out?  How do we tell those masses what is really going on so that they can come to well-informed decisions?  I feel very secure on this website that I am communicating for the most part with people of like mind.  That's good.  But is it sufficient?

Reply this comment

Person

hey fritzberger

By Kissenger, Clark at Feb 05, 2006 01:08 AM
what is "Condorcet" ?

Reply this comment

Person

hey Victor..

By Kissenger, Clark at Feb 04, 2006 21:28 PM
nope the blog does not appear to have been invaded by people diagnosed- right wings, although sometime I hope it is visited.. Some people here are ready to prvide intensiv therapy..

Reply this comment

Person

This website needs work

By Kissenger, Clark at Feb 04, 2006 03:11 AM

What is going on here?  Now we have to log on to post a comment?  The SORT feature doesn't work. 

 

Have right-wingers infiltrated our blog? 

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 25, 2006 19:58 PM
wow, sorry I was innacurate, the general was being submitted to torture, they were choking him with a bag and wire over his head.. Its a scary torture usually victim are so terrified by this technique, most die of a heart attack.. Defense attorney Frank Spinner claimed that Mowhoush wasn't murdered, but died accidentally of a heart attack, the jury trew out the charges of MURDER!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 24, 2006 20:42 PM
Also this morning on Yahoo news was the stoy about a US Caporal who shot a blindfolded, tied up captured Iraqi General, monsieur got 3 years in jail and 6 thousands dollars in wages repelled.. oops i found the link: bu**sh**!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 24, 2006 19:09 PM
i was going to put same quote, Pauls's quote made me fall off my chair; Vwood you beat me to it! The main problem affecting Canadian politics is the fact that corporations can take a political parties to the ground and remodel it to fit their agenda. Yesterday the vote in Canada turned out to be an Extended Right Hand of to the US Republican extreme right.. This is the US and Canada biggest issue, here, ( I guess) is the fact that our democracies are being controlled by the financing from Corporations and Unions. Political parties should only be financed by the people and it should have a "financing cap" and a spending cap during election, this including equal air time. Without it well never see true democracy.The current system is like a whore to corporate agenda.. Funny that but each time I show people about the environment, the ozone layers, and the unsustainability of this system going down, they agreed they should vote green party. They vote something else because they are guilty of overconsumerism and their sensitivity has been taken away by TV.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Victor_wood, Vwood at Jan 24, 2006 11:48 AM
insofar for as such a thing is remotely possible in a nation where 1 percent owns more than 40 percent of the wealth and inherently sociopathic ubercorporations that concentrate wealth and power like no institution known to history rape and roam the nation and planet like massive petro-driven fire-breathing dragons
he he - you have a real gift of the gab, Paul.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Fritzerbuster, Fritzerbuster at Jan 24, 2006 08:48 AM
[quote]* instant run-off so you can run a third/fourth party candidate without having to be accused of being a vile "spoiler"[/quote] IRV first piqued my interest in alternative voting systems, but after considering it thoroughly, I came to the conclusion that it's a bad system because it hides preferences which occur later in the voters' ranked lists in such a way that a loser could be favored by a majority over the eventual winner and the other losers. In this manner, it fails the Condorcet criterion, which states that if a candidate is preferred to every other candidate by a majority, it should be considered the winner. Any one of the Condorcet methods (by the way, these methods also utilize ranking ballots), on the other hand, will find such a candidate and declare them the winner should they exist. Unfortunately, there isn't always a Condorcet winner (in other words, a winner that is preferred to each other candidate) as a cycle of preferences sometimes arises (i.e. A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A). In the case of a cycle, a "completion" method would be used to resolve the ambiguity. A few popular "completion" methods are "Ranked Pairs," "Maximize Affirmed Majority," and "Cloneproof Sequential Schwartz Dropping." The three methods are similar (MAM and Ranked Pairs are especially similar), but small differences do exist between them.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jan 24, 2006 08:03 AM
this is a product of american culture, which is a product of american history. West Europe does not have such a lopsided and unequal justice system re: top vs bottom. The difference stems from our different histories. America started as a white slave colony for the unfortunate lower class of the British Isles. Most europeans who came to america in the 1600s came here involuntarily. Many were kangaroo-courted here. The stern slave colony culture was needed to control the white slaves, and then the black slaves, and that is what formed the national culture from 1615 to 1865. That is 235 years of white and black slave colony history. james madison --teh father of the American Constitution--died in 1835, same year ago Mother Jones was born. My dad was born in 1935, when Jones died. De Jure slavery ended only 140 years ago. America was formed as a slave colony, and its culture and criminal justice system still reflects the draconian discipline of that slave colony during our "formative" years of 1615 to 1865. The Overseer, the boss man, the Master, they ruled the slaves. Any infraction by the slaves was punished harshly. The masters did as they pleased. The fruit don't fall too far from the tree...

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Street, Paul at Jan 24, 2006 03:59 AM
fritzerbuster, where to begin on electoral reform that would enable something approaching a democratic politics, insofar for as such a thing is remotely possible in a nation where 1 percent owns more than 40 percent of the wealth and inherently sociopathic ubercorporations that concentrate wealth and power like no institution known to history rape and roam the nation and planet like massive petro-driven fire-breathing dragons: * abolish electoral college (complelely insane) * proportional representation * public financing of campaigns and only public financing * end Senate structure, which insanely over-empowers small "Red" states to advantage of hard right * fusion allowed (it is now illegal) so that a third party knowing it couldn't win with its own candidate could at least build some name by letting people vote for say the least awful bourgeois candidate under the left party's label * instant run-off so you can run a third/fourth party candidate without having to be accused of being a vile "spoiler" * massively eased and encourtaged voter registration * election days as holidays * abolition of voting ban for millions of felons and ex-felons in nation * end of decennial politicized redistricting (see what DeLay did to Texas and thereby to nation)...end of rampant gerrymandering * free public television time for candidates * Helicopter strafing and burning of K-Street and its counterparts in all the fifty state capita/ols. etc. Just kidding (kind of) on the last one. That's a start. We are so far from one-person, one vote it isn't funny. Basically we need a 28th Amendment - an "Abramoff (sp) Democracy Amendment" folding in much of this and more.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 23, 2006 14:59 PM
The political system in the US is flawed all over the place, anybody can see that. It's impossible for a 3rd party to really gain ground as long as they have little money, and "winner-takes-all" exists. But I have a problem with representative democracy itself. I am from Norway where we have a vastly superious election system compared to the US' and UK's. But even here the ruling class don't really care that much about democracy apart from every 4 years. Ideally the entire people should be involved in the debate and decide what policies the nation should undertake. But is that really possible? Very few would probably vote if we had several votes a week, and it would perhaps be easy to skew the populace on important issues as few would vote anyway. And how should debates go down? There are many issues involved. It soon boils down to some kind of representative democracy, and then we have the same problems again. Practically, it's quite hard to really have participatory democracy I think, though I would like it to happen as representative democracy doesn't work. Anybody have some ideas on this? Either way, taking back the mainstream media is mandatory for any sensible debate to go down. This is perhaps tricky, but very important in my opinion.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Victor_wood, Vwood at Jan 23, 2006 13:09 PM
There are three issues here, I believe. 1. The structure of the elective process (how candidates are chosen, who chooses them, to whom they are really responsible, how their campaigns are financed, etc.) 2. The structure of the voting process (who votes, how do they vote, how votes tabulated) 3. The legislative process (how issues are raised, which ones are considered, how they are prioritised, and how they are voted on by those responsible for enacting them into law) As for item 1 above, I believe we should abandon the bicameral style of government, opting for the election of representatives from a smaller cut of the population and forming one House of Representatives, financing each candidate by the government as part of the cost of government, disallowing all other forms of financing (including privately-financed media coverage and other forms of indirect support), and eliminating a popularly elected President and Vice-President. The Senate would be disbanded. And because there would no longer exist state-wide, national and special interest constituencies each representative would be free to vote according to the wishes of his local constituency and answerable only to them and the best interests of the nation as a whole. Such a system would virtually guarantee significant leftist and left-center representation, abandoning the winner-take-all concept would provide for a much more represntative and dynamic style of government. Just my opinion.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Fritzerbuster, Fritzerbuster at Jan 23, 2006 10:09 AM
[quote]Such parties are institutionally disabled however by the dominant winner-take-all structure which makes it just insanely difficult to run credible political campaigns from the left even while much of the populace basically supports left positions on numerous key issues.[/quote] Paul, are there any alternative vote-tabulation methods you find yourself to be particularly partial to? Do you like any of the Condorcet methods for instance?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Olsenflizz, Xipetotec at Jan 23, 2006 07:04 AM
"But 12 and 9 years, respectively? Bernie Ebbers and a few others aside, that's less time than is generally meted out to people who defraud employees, retirees, and investors out of billions of dollars and who thereby truly damage the lives of significant masses of people." This kind of thing gives ammo to th "tort reform" crowd who are looking to make big business even less accountable. Lawsuits are important mechanisms for holding companies accountable and the "tort reform" campaign is (mostly) just a sop to big business. These morons gave them a talking point we will still be hearing 20 years from now. Look to the larger battle.

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Street, Paul at Jan 23, 2006 01:32 AM
Rudy, I'm not sure what you mean by "strengthening" but I'm thinking that in the context of this post/discussion you must mean does anyone lobby state government's to reform sentencing laws and practices in a more democratic direction. If that's what you mean then check out The Sentencing Project (based in Washington D.C.), the Vera Institute (NYC I think), the Brennan Center (part of NYU, it may do some stuff on this) and Families Against Mandatory Minimums, which has done a lot at the state level around the nation's (frankly) racist drug laws and sentencing and related matters. They all have web sites and I'm sure there's more. VWood while I share alot of your basic anarcho-syndicalist skepticism/sentiments regarding political parties in "capitalist democracies," I think it would be useful to have significant third and fourth opposition parties on the left. Such parties are institutionally disabled however by the dominant winner-take-all structure which makes it just insanely difficult to run credible political campaigns from the left even while much of the populace basically supports left positions on numerous key issues. This is by institutional design going back a very long way I think.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Brothernumbertwo, Rudy at Jan 22, 2006 20:18 PM
Has anyone ever considered lobbying their respective state legislatures to strengthen the criminal codes?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Victor_wood, Vwood at Jan 22, 2006 12:18 PM
Pangaea, I do not believe the US needs another political party. It needs to get rid of its political party system altogether, as do most of the other countries of the world. Political parties are formed to be massive voting blocks composed of people who are willing to sign up to a general set of political positions and support the party in attaining power. Good practical idea. The problem is that such parties need a LOT of money to organise and implement a unified strategy. While they can count on some money from their contituents, the real money must be gained from private interests - corporations and the rich and the powerful who have connections to the corporations and the rich. Money is NEVER offered freely. Thus, whoever controls the purse-strings of a political party, in reality, IS the political party. We must find a way to execute the will of the people through mechanisms that are DIRECTLY responsible to the people and which is highly sensitive to public opinion. And that opinion should not be "formed" by psychological warfare techniques through corporately owned and controlled mass media but extracted. And it should not be extracted from an ignorant public base but from a public properly educated, informed and CONDITIONED to use their reasoning powers and to recognise bullshit when they hear it. Today, a BIG challenge in America. To me, it is the only way out. But, unfortunately, the path least likely to be taken in today's world.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 22, 2006 04:52 AM
I read that news report today, and was gob-smacked. How can a court give such a sentence for a minor crime like that? It's just insain. Translate this to the US atrocity against Iraq, and the entire US population would be in jail for the rest of their lives, and would have to give up all their savings, resources and companies to Iraqis, and still be indebted. Corporatins have gained many of their "rights" in the courts, with the help of an army of lawyers. Regular people just don't stand a chance. But that doesn't mean the courts themselves don't have a saying. They must be filled with hopeless judges. As far as I know there isn't a law that says black people get this sentence, while white people get this. Or white collar crimes get this sentence, while "regular" crimes get this entence. The courts have given these various sentences based on skin-color or income, not the laws. Then there is the "bottom line" of the prison industry. Prisoners are cheap labour, filling up the prisons therefore make good "business sense". A third party is very much needed in the US. For this the election-system has to be changed. Now it's just the same monster with two heads, as Nader put it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 21, 2006 03:18 AM
[quote] And then...why just "taxpayer's money?" Stealing from pensions and savings invested in stocks from health care is plenty bad. How divorce "Haliburton" (which is as much about the Pentagon as Wall Street) from the imperialist project so graphically exposed in Iraq? [/quote] Paul, stop this or people will label you a whistleblower or trouble maker. I am currently similar experiencing trouble from unions having done just the same. Paul tis is something that always eluded me with your political system, how can your administration have so many direct personal interests meddling with the affairs of your country ? How did this happen, how did your US citizen rights vanish to the detriment of the corporate world ? How did your people loose its equal citizenship ? I think mostly that the problem started with the fact that the US has no opposition "political parties". So the parties are constantly making laws and ruling aimed at weakening US citizens rights. Paul I dont know if you have read it, but I've found some readings made by Noam Chomsky, arguments that seem to give EXPLANATION about why your legal system became unjust to its citizens. NC said your country became an oligarchy. I understand your complaint Paul, it is very much unfair, the legal system is very much flawed.

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Street, Paul at Jan 21, 2006 01:12 AM
A. vs. B. A. I talked about "the disproportionate legal influence exercised by people of means relative to those without the financial resources to hire good lawyers and work the political and judicial systems to their advantage." "Bernie Ebbers and a few others aside, the sentences given to the finger couple are less time," I added, "than is generally meted out to people who defraud employees, retirees, and investors out of billions of dollars and who thereby truly damage the lives of significant masses of people [that would be a reference to Enron and World Com etc.] ..I'd like to see a comparative sentencing analysis on that." "I'm curious to find out," I added, "if any meatpacking executives have served any time for their industry's notorious evasion of occupational safety standards, a crime that generates more than a few, well, severed fingers that never make it into the public eye" (corporate interests here would include Iowa Beef Processors, Conagra, and other lords of the modern-day "Jungle" (originally published 100 years ago). B. McCorbin says: "In trying to argue the point of inequity of sentencing of rich vs. poor, perhaps we ought to compare the Wendy's case with Enron, Haliburton, or any Wall Street scandal involving theft of taxpayer's money rather than the Iraq war." And then...why just "taxpayer's money?" Stealing from pensions and savings invested in stocks from health care is plenty bad. How divorce "Haliburton" (which is as much about the Pentagon as Wall Street) from the imperialist project so graphically exposed in Iraq? I don't know if it's true --- and can't help it if it is --- that "mainstream opinion" segregates its moral concerns (Martin Luther King. Jr.'s useful phrase to describe the critical flaw of those who argued that he should restrict his commentary and activism to domestic civil rights issues, ignoring the U.S. war on Vietnam) in the way that McCorbin suggests. If it is true, then "mainstream opinion" should stop doing that. "Now all the criminals in their coats and their ties Are free to drink martinis and watch the sun rise."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 20, 2006 21:48 PM
Paul here they would have got a fine..I guess the US judge computed the sentence depending upon what finger was placed there! c'est du pareil au pire! ( laughs) There exist also other class consensus affecting our legal system(s), Mainly the relationships - Employer- Employee - Creditor- Debtor - Union and Employer The small guy rights always seem to weight less in the legal balance.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Poleawl, Hobbes at Jan 20, 2006 20:26 PM
Our judicial system, like others, reflects the internal power structure of the country. The most troubling thing to me about the abuse of power and disproportionate justice for the poor and disenfranchised is that, in spite of its blatant nature, we are still taught to revere it, standing in awe. Okay, certainly there are ways in which our legal system serves its function, but it is undermined so clearly by money and power that it does not deserve an iota more of praise and complacency. See it for what it is: a system incredibly flawed that needs reform.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Jan 20, 2006 20:07 PM
"Steal a little and they throw you jail, steal a lot and they'll make you king" -Bob Dylan A agree with Paul that the Iraq war is a worse crime, and it's planners should be punish accordingly. However, in trying to argue the point of inequity of sentencing of rich vs. poor, perhaps we ought to compare the Wendy's case with Enron, Haliburton, or any Wall Street scandal involving theft of taxpayer's money rather than the Iraq war. My reasoning is that by bringing up the war, the point may be lost because a lot of people assume that rules that apply to civilians under normal circumstances, should not be compared to rules applied to leaders in times of war. Again, this is not my opinion, just what I think is the mainstream opinion.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Money Talks, BU**SH** Walks

By Victor_wood, Vwood at Jan 20, 2006 11:59 AM
Paul, Well said. This is a subject close to my heart. "White collar" crimes and human rights crimes by those of great means and power is seldom punished proportionally. Why? Because these crimes are not really crimes in the legal sense. The established political, legal and economic structure is there to protect and encourage such abuse on the part of the elite, not to punish it. If you are black or Hispanic, or poor, or just a regualr guy like me, you are likely to end up in the slammer for a long, long time for even relatively minor infractions of law in which but a few are harmed (witness the burgeoning prison population of the US today - greater than any other country!). But commit a really BIG crime, and it is not seen as a crime at all. Why? Because really BIG crimes are committed by really POWERFUL folks - folks who own armies of lawyers, the mass media, and control the laws and military might of the country. What chance do human rights have against such power? Not much. But there is a way.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (26)

Loading_border