Tim Grieve, Salon, October 1, 2007 In a memoir to be released today, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas equates himself with both Tom Robinson in "To Kill a Mockingbird" and Bigger Thomas in "Native Son." As a child, Thomas says he was warned by his grandfather "that I could be picked up off the streets of Savannah and hauled off to jail or the chain gang for no other reason than that I was black." As an adult, Thomas says his 1991 confirmation hearings put him "back into Bigger Thomas' world, a dark, cramped hell devoid of hope." The hyperbole here is breathtaking: Thomas' rapid rise to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court was interrupted, ever so briefly, by allegations that he sexually harassed Anita Hill; in Richard Wright's novel, Bigger Thomas is wrongly convicted of raping and murdering a white woman and then sentenced to death for the crimes. But even if the analogies Thomas makes are somehow apt, what's incredible is how little he has learned from them. Writing about Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird," Thomas says that Robinson, on trial for raping a white woman, "was lucky to have had a trial at all" after having been saved from a "lynch mob's rope." Writing a dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld in 2004, Thomas said that the president of the United States has unfettered power to declare a citizen an enemy combatant and hold him indefinitely without charges. "Undeniably," Thomas wrote, "Hamdi has been deprived of a serious interest, one actually protected by the Due Process Clause. Against this, however, is the government's overriding interest in protecting the Nation. If a deprivation of liberty can be justified by the need to protect a town, the protection of the Nation, a fortiori, justifies it." Read More Here

Paul Krugman, The New York Times, October 1, 2007 In May 2005 NYSE Magazine featured an article titled “American Dream Builder” — a glowing profile of Angelo Mozilo, the chairman and C.E.O. of Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest mortgage lender. The article portrayed Mr. Mozilo as a heckuva guy — a man from a humble background determined to help other people, especially members of minority groups, achieve the American dream of homeownership. The article didn’t mention one of Mr. Mozilo’s other distinguishing characteristics: the extraordinary size of his paychecks. Last year Mr. Mozilo was paid $142 million, making him the seventh-highest-paid chief executive in America. These days, of course, Mr. Mozilo doesn’t look like such a wonderful guy, after all. Instead, he’s starting to bring back memories of other people who used to be praised not just as great businessmen but as great human beings — people like Enron’s Ken Lay and WorldCom’s Bernie Ebbers. So far, nobody has accused Mr. Mozilo of breaking the law. Still, what we’re learning from the housing mess is that the crisis of corporate governance, which made headlines in the early years of this decade, never went away. At this point it appears that Mr. Mozilo achieved the rare feat of victimizing three distinct groups. Read More Here

After you click on the link, click on his link to the data, then scroll down to page 11 and notice how many died in hostile action. Tellingly, he does not mention how many were injured, physically or mentally; Just those that died. As if that is the only cost of military action. LINK "...more members of the military died in 1980, while Jimmy Carter was in the White House abdicating our responsibilities around the world, than in any one of the years we've been in Iraq."

It’s very exciting to me that with our technology, even the confused little old lady in Florida can’t screw up the voting system. Instead of her being able to carefully hang a chad, or vote for both Kerry and Bush, she must now press a frail, uncertain finger against a touch screen that won’t tolerate anything other than a single choice. But now, as the election reform issue turns to other topics, there is a growing mindset that is willing to sacrifice secrecy for accurate vote count. This bothers me because I don’t want man or machine to know how we vote. The question, then, is how do we obtain both a very high degree of voting privacy and accuracy? This is how: (1) Require photo identification (such as a driver’s license) against the up-to-date list of names of registered voters. We should enter the voting precinct and show picture I.D. to the poll worker, who then finds us on the list. Then we sign on the line next to our name, and go vote. (2) Use a computer touch screen which both issues a paper ballot to the voter, and records the vote electronically. (3) The paper ballot is then inspected by the voter and put into the ballot box. After the polls close, the paper ballots are carefully counted, the count is matched against the number of people who showed i.d., and signed the list, and against the computer disk record. All three must match: paper ballot, number of people who signed to vote, and computer disk count. So if 2000 people showed I.D.., 2000 must have voted electronically and there must be 2000 paper ballots. If they don’t match, work it out amongst all parties to satisfaction. (4) Randomly pre-assign the ballot with a number, issued to the voter. For example, the number 4XXX2170 might be your ballot number. This number is on your paper ballot and you either write it down or tear a little tab with the number on it before putting the paper ballot in the ballot box. Then all the numbers are displayed on the internet. No one else has any idea who 4XXX2170 is, but you. This helps verify that your vote was recorded and counted. This also gives the total number of voters, again. If not there, voter reports discrepancy. (5) Provide appropriate punishment for those who cheat, so it’s not worth it to do so. For example, in Chicago (was it Chicago ?) more people voted for Al Gore in 2000 than there were registered voters. Cheating like this should be investigated and prosecuted vigorously. One thing I really dread is a federal takeover of our election process. States are reforming their ballot process just fine, thank you very much, and should receive neither federal mandates nor federal money, in spite of what Jimmy Carter wants. The state run election is one of the more subtle yet powerful checks and balances in our system of government and besides, the govt is already too large, powerful and wasteful to be taking on more responsibility. Incidentally, people should not be overly encouraged to vote. I’m very willing to study the issues and candidates and vote for those who don’t feel like it. Being able to register and vote the same day is a bad idea because it disrupts the carefully maintained list of registered voters needed for accurate elections (see point #1). It’s an embarrassing fact that one of the components of our Judeo/Christian heritage, honesty, is now so lacking in our culture that the foregoing is necessary. As a result, our voting system, in order to be accurate, must contain redundancy and therefore be expensive to administer. But I’m certainly willing to pay the price for secret, thoroughly accurate elections, and suggest the preceding as a way to achieve much needed election reform. Grimgold