Your first report on Samuel Alito's recent imbroglio regarding his acceptance of a fishing trip provided by a uberwealthy Republican donor just illustrates the urgent need of Congress to conduct some sort of ethics investigation into the actions of the Supreme Court. Both Thomas and Alito have now demonstrated a serious lapse in ethics for accepting lavish trips by individuals who could have business before the Court. How can this behavior not be considered textbook examples of conflicts of interest here? There are standards of judicial conduct for other types of jurists, so why shouldn't there be the same standards applied to members of the Supreme Court? Something must be done soon so that the imbalance on the court can be righted with the removal of several suspect justices. Another consideration is the possible adoption of term limits for Supreme Court justices. Even though I'm proposing this here, I seriously doubt that this will be pushed through anytime soon. In the meantime, we will have to live with other lapses in judgment being made by the current composition of the court until ethical standards can be adopted.
I agree with Justin about giving Senator Kennedy a chance in the 2024 presidential race. I truly believe as Justin has said that as he takes his crazy agenda onto the national stage, he will be rejected by the millions of rational voters out there. We can't have a viable candidate in someone who sows so much disinformation like Kennedy. Let's hope he does "flame out," as Justin predicts.
Just for your information, you both dropped off while discussing the candidacy of this unfit candidate for president in 2024. I lost the audio here for several minutes, so I'm assuming this was a one-time situation.
I cannot believe that, in this day and age, there are Americans who side with that dictator Putin over Ukraine since there is no conceivable reason for supporting this thug. History will repeat itself if this tyrant wins the war in Ukraine and decides to expand his empire elsewhere in Europe.
This will be an iteration of Hitler's own policy of "Lebensraum," as reflected in Putin's expansionist goals. Anyone who supports the mad goals of this murderous autocrat is just as loony as they come.
As for the sad fate of that Titanic submersible, critics have pointed out that there was more coverage of this disaster than the far terrible tragedy of those migrants drowning off the coast of Greece. I believe the death toll in that disaster was in the hundreds, not five superwealthy individuals who knew the risks of what they were doing. Where was the continuous coverage of this human tragedy in the mainstream press? I would say it was nowhere to be found.
Anyway, I enjoyed your podcast as usual, despite the lapse in audio for several minutes.
Yes, I will admit that I made a slip of the keyboard here and typed "Senator" here when he's not, but I'm sure the podcast crew knew who I was referring to in my response. The main thing is that this candidate for the office of president is totally unfit and unqualified, even though he bears the name of a Kennedy.
Justin talked about this a little bit, and I’d like to amplify those comments with my own analysis of what let’s call (for lack of anything better) the “Greenwald effect“.
Greenwald and I are about the same age. so I expect that, like myself, his political point of view was shaped by Vietnam, Nixon, Kissinger, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, etc. This led to the internalization of the idea that whatever horrible things happened in the world, you can be sure that American Intelligence Agencies were at the heart of it. And, as exposed by the Church Commission in the 70s, there was a lot of truth in that. This also led to a tendency toward uncritical sympathy towards the USSR, and subsequently Russia. (They opposed our involvement in Vietnam; I opposed our involvement in Vietnam. We must be on the same side. The invasion of Prague in the Spring of ’68 disabused me of that notion; for many of us, it seems, that was not the case.)
However (and this is certainly arguable), that’s not as true as it used to be, after the changes instituted in the wake of Church. I no longer accept as fact the notion that everything that goes wrong in the world is somehow America‘s fault. It would appear however that Greenwald &co. still hold to that notion. So, anybody that opposes America’s foreign policy moves is on the side of goodness and right, irrespective of who they are, and what kind of actors they are internationally and in their own countries. And if you support America’s position, you’re a neocon, neoliberal corporatist. This blinds them to the values they grew up with, replacing those values of liberal democracy and noninterventionism with a reactionary tribalism that excuses the neo-fascist domestic policies and international thuggery of places like Putin’s Russia. 🤔😉😊
Your first report on Samuel Alito's recent imbroglio regarding his acceptance of a fishing trip provided by a uberwealthy Republican donor just illustrates the urgent need of Congress to conduct some sort of ethics investigation into the actions of the Supreme Court. Both Thomas and Alito have now demonstrated a serious lapse in ethics for accepting lavish trips by individuals who could have business before the Court. How can this behavior not be considered textbook examples of conflicts of interest here? There are standards of judicial conduct for other types of jurists, so why shouldn't there be the same standards applied to members of the Supreme Court? Something must be done soon so that the imbalance on the court can be righted with the removal of several suspect justices. Another consideration is the possible adoption of term limits for Supreme Court justices. Even though I'm proposing this here, I seriously doubt that this will be pushed through anytime soon. In the meantime, we will have to live with other lapses in judgment being made by the current composition of the court until ethical standards can be adopted.
I agree with Justin about giving Senator Kennedy a chance in the 2024 presidential race. I truly believe as Justin has said that as he takes his crazy agenda onto the national stage, he will be rejected by the millions of rational voters out there. We can't have a viable candidate in someone who sows so much disinformation like Kennedy. Let's hope he does "flame out," as Justin predicts.
Just for your information, you both dropped off while discussing the candidacy of this unfit candidate for president in 2024. I lost the audio here for several minutes, so I'm assuming this was a one-time situation.
I cannot believe that, in this day and age, there are Americans who side with that dictator Putin over Ukraine since there is no conceivable reason for supporting this thug. History will repeat itself if this tyrant wins the war in Ukraine and decides to expand his empire elsewhere in Europe.
This will be an iteration of Hitler's own policy of "Lebensraum," as reflected in Putin's expansionist goals. Anyone who supports the mad goals of this murderous autocrat is just as loony as they come.
As for the sad fate of that Titanic submersible, critics have pointed out that there was more coverage of this disaster than the far terrible tragedy of those migrants drowning off the coast of Greece. I believe the death toll in that disaster was in the hundreds, not five superwealthy individuals who knew the risks of what they were doing. Where was the continuous coverage of this human tragedy in the mainstream press? I would say it was nowhere to be found.
Anyway, I enjoyed your podcast as usual, despite the lapse in audio for several minutes.
Love the feedback and commentary Ronald! Apologies on the audio -- we fixed it so the full show should be available without audio gaps!
“I agree with Justin about giving Senator Kennedy a chance in the 2024 presidential race.”
Senator, Ronald? I think you’ve got a slight mixup in your Kennedys.
Yes, I will admit that I made a slip of the keyboard here and typed "Senator" here when he's not, but I'm sure the podcast crew knew who I was referring to in my response. The main thing is that this candidate for the office of president is totally unfit and unqualified, even though he bears the name of a Kennedy.
No worries. I realized it was an inadvertent slip.
Hi, guys…
Justin talked about this a little bit, and I’d like to amplify those comments with my own analysis of what let’s call (for lack of anything better) the “Greenwald effect“.
Greenwald and I are about the same age. so I expect that, like myself, his political point of view was shaped by Vietnam, Nixon, Kissinger, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, etc. This led to the internalization of the idea that whatever horrible things happened in the world, you can be sure that American Intelligence Agencies were at the heart of it. And, as exposed by the Church Commission in the 70s, there was a lot of truth in that. This also led to a tendency toward uncritical sympathy towards the USSR, and subsequently Russia. (They opposed our involvement in Vietnam; I opposed our involvement in Vietnam. We must be on the same side. The invasion of Prague in the Spring of ’68 disabused me of that notion; for many of us, it seems, that was not the case.)
However (and this is certainly arguable), that’s not as true as it used to be, after the changes instituted in the wake of Church. I no longer accept as fact the notion that everything that goes wrong in the world is somehow America‘s fault. It would appear however that Greenwald &co. still hold to that notion. So, anybody that opposes America’s foreign policy moves is on the side of goodness and right, irrespective of who they are, and what kind of actors they are internationally and in their own countries. And if you support America’s position, you’re a neocon, neoliberal corporatist. This blinds them to the values they grew up with, replacing those values of liberal democracy and noninterventionism with a reactionary tribalism that excuses the neo-fascist domestic policies and international thuggery of places like Putin’s Russia. 🤔😉😊