When the Supreme Court Struck Back at Roosevelt 1/2

by Nomad
In the past I have written about Roosevelt’s forgotten battle with the Supreme Court in 1933 but I’d like to return to this lost bit of history for a closer look. It isn’t all about our grandfather’s history because at this time, in these days prior to the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Obama’s healthcare reform program, the parallels, I think, are striking. 

It isn’t the first time the executive and the judicial branches have been at loggerheads and perhaps lessons can be learned from history.

Action Now

The 1932 presidential election was not even close. President Herbert Hoover’s failed policies and his apparent detachment from the trials of his own people during the Great Depression won his few votes. At no time in American history had the conditions been quite as unforgiving as this and yet Hoover seemed out of touch with the average Americans. 

Like most economists of his age, Hoover on the other hand had warned against "mindless experimentation" in established government policy. He felt that the best policy was to wait things out, the national economy would recover on its own. It always had before.

Taken For Granted: Comparing a Week of Food Around the World

As our great-grandmothers used to tell us, "Waste not, want not." It's an idea that has vanished with the pocket watch and the Victrola. It's worth noting how much we in the West take for granted when it comes to food.

Too often we in the developed countries of the world forget how lucky actually are. Many of us cannot begin to imagine what it is like not to live in a land of plenty. It's easy to do if you have never been hungry.
And because we tend to take things for granted, we become part of the problem. 

Take food and how we waste it.

According to a 2013 report by the National Resources Defense Council, the average American tosses about 25 percent of food and beverages purchased. For a family of four, the money wasted could total from $1,365 to $2,275. Food spending as a percentage of the overall budget has decreased dramatically over the last few decades, but it’s still the third-largest expense for a household.

The organization also points out that feeding the U.S. population requires an enormous amount of land and resources. When the resources to grow that food are considered, this amounts to approximately 25 percent of all freshwater, 4 percent of the oil we consume, and more than $165 billion dollars all dedicated to producing food that never gets eaten.

Clearly as population in developing countries continue to grow, there will be a limit to how much can be produced 

The photos below are from the book "Hungry Planet: What the World Eats" by Peter Menzel and Faith D'Aluisio, a photographic study of families from around the world, revealing what people eat during the course of one week.

Each family's profile includes a detailed description and how much was spend every week. It's a truly eye-opening examination of human life on Earth, isn't it?

The March of the Bonus Army- Washington, June 1932

by Nomad

The story of the Bonus March on Washington in the summer of 1932 isn't as famous as it should be. Here's a post about the protests and how they were ended by brute force.

Where the March Began

The 1932 march of the Bonus Army has largely been forgotten by the public. The reason for this collective amnesia is perhaps easy to understand. Details about why it started and how it ended do not fit in well with how we Americans think of themselves and our country. Moreover, a few of the people of we think of as heroes today played less than heroic roles in the affair.

The origins of the march began much earlier than 1932. They can be traced back to the days after the Armistice of the First World War. Returning veterans came home and were dismayed to learn of the differences between their wages compared to those in the civilian branch of the selective service. State-side draftees made quite a bit more than those that had actually fought and risked their lives. The war veterans demanded that some kind of compensations be paid for their lost income. During those boom years, Congress tended to agree.

The Madwoman of Chaillot: Truth Never Goes Out of Fashion

By Nomad
Don't you think it's time to take a small sanity break? I know I need a moment to breathe. And Sunday is a good day for reflection. So, I wanted to share with you a bit of thoughtful entertainment. It might bring you  a bit of solace, perspective and perhaps even a smile.

The Madwoman of Chaillot was written by the French playwright, Jean Giraudoux, in 1943 but you'd never know it. (Sadly Giraudoux died before the play was performed on stage.)

The message of the play really hasn't aged a bit. Perhaps it is even more suitable today than it in the time it was written.
The French charm is definitely there and nobody handles this kind of satire comedy quite in the same way as the French.

The plot is pretty simple. One day at a Parisian cafe, a group of strangers meet. These are not ordinary men by any measure. They represent- in various ways- the embodiment of modern evil in the human form of bankers, industrialists, militarists etc. (Chief baddie in the film version was effortlessly played by none-other then Yul Brynner.)

They have come to form a new corporation, though they haven't a name or even a product. To aid them in this a prospector arrives who convinces them that under Paris there are vast oil reserves. It is, he tells them, there for the taking. There's only the small matter of destroying a city to get to it.

Enter Countess Aurelia, the madwoman of Chaillot- a local slightly eccentric neighborhood character. By accident, at the same cafe, she uncovers the plot, She hatches her own brilliant scheme to set the world back on its proper course. Her practical solution? Round up and exterminate of all of the evil people of the world. 

Although there are so many great lines in the play, I have taken two selections from the film version made in 1969, starring Katherine Hepburn in the title role. The film version is unfortunately flawed, in desperate need of editing, I'm afraid. Nevertheless, it is worth watching if you find the film and the time to watch it. 

In one scene, the Countess is made aware of the problem- that the world is not happy. When the Countess learns about the cabal and their plans, she is not impressed. "What a wretched world they live in. So unlike ours."

The people of the neighborhood agree that time has come to reveal to the madwoman the truth, that things are in a right mess and the world has been taken over by people like the group in the cafe. 

It begins with the line "Countess if only you knew... Shall we tell her?"

Incidentally the role of The Rag picker is played by Danny Kaye. A surprisingly good performance, I thought.

In the second scene, the Countess has been informed by one of her equally mad friends, Countess Josephine, played by Dame Edith Evans, that you can't go around exterminating people willy-nilly. ("They'll be missed and we'll all be fined. They fine you for the least little thing nowadays.") 

Countess Josephine- who represents the Justice system with all its flaws and solemn nonsense- tells the Countess that her idea of removing all of the evil people in the world is indeed practical.. providing they've all had a trial.

Countess: A trial?
Josephine: Certainly. You can't kill anybody without a trial. That's elementary. "No man shall be deprived of his life, liberty and property without due process of law."

(Given the state of things at the moment with Gitmo, midnight "renditions," the abolition of habeus corpus and drone strikes based on kill-lists, those are painful lines.)

Despite the apparent rigidity of the law, you can get around most obstacles through inane loopholes. By the use of several of these conveniences, Josephine and the Countess come up with a solution. 

Josephine advises:

"You can summon the defendants three times- mentally, if you like- and if they don't appear, the court may designate an attorney to represent them."

When the Countess tells her that she doesn't know any lawyers, Josephine dismisses her concerns by explaining to her:

"A defense is like baptism. Absolutely indispensable but you don't have to know anything to do it. You can get anybody off the street."

(Josephine, acting at the judge in the ad hoc court, does object to the first suggestion of having the deaf-mute as the defense for all of the evil in the world, however.)

In this way, the pair agree to have a trial in the damp and dark recesses of her basement, and the local refuse-collector/rag-picker will act as their defense. He knows them "to the bottom of their souls." After all, he goes through their trash every day. What does he find in their rubbish? Mostly flowers. 

If you haven't seen the film, I'd advise you to rush over to YouTube and search for it. It probably won't be there long since for obvious reasons. (Some executive will realize that he is losing money every time somebody shares something for free. 

If I had my way, this play would be performed every year in every town in America. What about you, do you have any favorite plays that you would like to see performed?

Here's a clip from the film: You can find other clips HERE.

______________________

If you enjoyed this post, be sure to link it at other comment sections in other sites where relevant. Sharing is a pleasure and it's really what the Net is all about.

To Retweet:

https://twitter.com/ANomadicView/status/214373383373197312

Digg

http://digg.com/news/politics/the_madwoman_of_chaillot_truth_never_goes_out_of_fashion_nomadic_politics

Liar: UK Prime Minister Exposes Rupert Murdoch in Leveson Inquiry

by Nomad
Rupert Murdoch, head of the media empire News Corporation, has come under fire in the UK. His newspapers are accused of hacking into private phones in the name of journalism. Questions are now being asked about how much influence did Murdoch actually have in the political process and what was the effect.

The UK media ethics investigation and phone-hacking scandal which threatens to bring down Rupert Murdoch’s vast media empire, News International, has taken a dramatic turn.

A former prime minister has charged that Rupert Murdoch  lied under oath to the Parliamentary inquiry committee investigating allegations of excessive media influence in the political process. 

The Leveson Inquiry

Prime Minister David Cameron took the courageous step of creating a Parliamentary investigatory panel, led by Lord Justice Leveson. The Leveson Inquiry was charged with looking into the claims of illegal phone hacking at Murdoch-owned newspapers, with illicit pay-offs to the police for inside information. Additionally, the inquiry was to look into the wider of issue of British media ethics. (What they could scavenge anyway).