HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » ck4829 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2

ck4829

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Mar 20, 2004, 11:37 AM
Number of posts: 33,284

Journal Archives

Blaming Workers, Hiding Profits in Primetime Inflation Coverage

A FAIR study looking at six months of coverage across six primetime television news shows and NPR‘s All Things Considered found that segments on inflation put far more emphasis on the contributions of labor shortages and social spending—through driving up the cost of labor—than to the role of corporate profit-taking.

This portrays the economy as a zero sum game between workers and consumers, who appear to be intractably at odds if corporate profits are left out of the equation.

During the same period, the shows proved capable of hearing workers’ demands for higher wages when their coverage framed the issue as a “Great Resignation,” or during the shows’ scant coverage of “Striketober,” when a wave of labor militancy swept through much of the country.

This points to an inconsistency in coverage of the same labor market trends: When the shows were covering inflation, the “tight” labor market was mostly treated with the cool and icy calculation of market logic. But on the comparatively rare occasions when the shows covered the grievances of workers and their demands for dignified work—which are widely popular demands, given that most consumers are in fact workers too—the reports showed a more human side to what would otherwise be numbers on a scorecard, and mentioned the record profits of corporations.

https://fair.org/home/blaming-workers-hiding-profits-in-primetime-inflation-coverage/

Inner workings of the conservative-leaning Supreme Court laid bare for all to see

Is it with great debates?
By poring over massive books and tomes of law?
By citing previous laws and records?

You'd think, right? But no.

In case you needed any further proof that the modern anti-abortion movement is an outgrowth of many centuries of virulent misogyny and violence against women, Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked opinion draft striking down Roe v. Wade relies heavily on a 17th century English jurist who had two women executed for “witchcraft,” wrote in defense of marital rape, and believed capital punishment should extend to kids as young as 14.

“Two treatises by Sir Matthew Hale,” Alito wrote in his argument to end legal abortion across America, “described abortion of a quick child who died in the womb as a ‘great crime’ and a ‘great misprision.’ See M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown.”

https://jezebel.com/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-draft-cites-sir-matthew-hale-1848872890


And how did this Sir Matthew Hale decide cases? What evidence did he use to enforce and interpret the law?

*chuckles*

Well...

Spectral evidence is a form of evidence based on dreams and visions. It was witness testimony that a person’s spirit or specter appeared to the witness in a dream or vision and afflicted them.

In English tradition, spectral evidence was not accepted as evidence in a witchcraft trial, according to an article on the Massachusetts Trial Court Law Libraries blog:

“In the English tradition, although the rules of evidence were vague, legal experts insisted on clear and ‘convincing’ proof of a crime…So-called ‘spectral evidence,’ in which a victim testifies to experiencing an attack by a witch in spirit form, invisible to everyone else, was not accepted as evidence.”

Yet, in 1662, Sir Matthew Hale solidified the legal credibility of spectral evidence in witchcraft cases by allowing it in the Bury St. Edmund case in England, thus setting a precedent to be used at Salem in 1692.

https://historyofmassachusetts.org/spectral-evidence/


"Falling into a fit" while testifying against a person counted as evidence for the accused's witchcraft in Hale's court.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Languages_of_Witchcraft/0VFdDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=matthew+hale+spectral+evidence&pg=PA70&printsec=frontcover


If this is how the conservative-leaning Supreme Court wants to interpret cases, the SCOTUS might as well decide to get blindfolded and throw darts at boxes containing random legal decisions or decide cases based on the plaintiff and the defendant arm-wrestling each other and who wins.

Those two things would be improvements!
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2