Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
100716HenryKissingerNosePicking
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.

Day11

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
cp-store

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

The Justice of Intolerance Antonin Scalia's Contempus Mundi

Antonin Scalia’s Contemptus Mundi

by ELAINE CASSEL

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who has been heard to say that he thinks he is too smart for the Court, let fly his contempt for his colleagues last week. Speaking of the court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which earlier this year struck down Texas’s homosexual sodomy law, he lambasted the majority for twisting the Constitution to suit its liberal agenda. Liberal? Souter, Ginsberg, and Stevens, yes. But Justices Kennedy (who wrote the majority opinion), O’Connor, and Breyer?

When it suits him, Scalia calls himself a "strict constructionist" of the U.S. Constitution. For instance, the death penalty can never be cruel and unusual punishment because the death penalty was in use when the Constitution was drafted. Sodomy must be a crime today, because, he said this week, it was a crime at the time of the country’s founding. Of course, the strict constructionist argument runs into trouble when it meets modern technology. In a case decided a couple of years ago, Scalia believed that the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures reached to heat-sensing technology that detected the growth of marijuana plants in a house. How could that be unconstitutional when heat-sensing technology was not on the minds of the founding fathers?

According to news reports, Scalia, speaking to the ultra-conservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute, read from the Lawrence opinion in mocking tones. Ironic, inasmuch as the 50-year-old institute has says its mission is to "enhance the rising generation’s knowledge of our nation’s founding principles – limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise and Judeo-Christian moral standards." The organization, like its famed speaker, draws the line at your individual liberty. They get theirs, you don’t get yours if it is contrary to theirs. And there is only one Judeo-Christian moral standard–their own.

Scalia is not alone in his condemnation of his colleagues on the high court. Clarence Thomas has repeatedly talked about the cold and lonely place that is the Court. He shows his contempt for oral arguments by generally refusing to participate.

Why is it that the right, especially the religious right, represented by the likes of Scalia on the court, are so totally unaccepting of another’s point of view? Do they truly believe that they have all of the answers to all legal, legislative, and social issues? This week I gave a legal seminar to attorneys in a part of Virginia where Rev. Pat Robertson seems to have a lock on "truth." A couple of religious zealots in the seminar derided other attorneys who tried to talk about life and death issues such abortion, end-of-life treatment, stem cell research, and health care for all Americans. We were supposed to be talking about legal conundrums and challenges.

But to some, there was nothing to discuss. "God" decides who lives and dies, and even who is fortunate enough to get health insurance. As one dissenting lawyer said, "You mean your God? Then if we feel that ‘our’ God acts on human events in a different way, we lose?"

While Scalia’s remarks did not have a religious context, they stem from his religious views that carry bigotry and intolerance to the extreme. It is impossible for Scalia to entertain rational debate and to interpret laws outside the spin of his religiopolitical view of the world. He, not his colleagues that carried the day in Lawrence v. Texas, should be mocked and criticized. But they are more fair-minded, tolerant, and judicious in manner and conduct and would not stoop to the depths of Scalia’s ill manners.

As jurists, the majority, and perhaps even dissenters Rehnquist and Thomas (who do not, even in dissent, engage in personal diatribe against their colleagues) looked at the issue of the Texas law as they are supposed to–examining it from historical, social, and legal perspectives. Justice Kennedy’s opinion is well-reasoned, thoughtfully argued, and consistent with the equal protection clause’s mandate that extends the guarantees of the constitution to people that Scalia hates.

Hateful, cruel, intolerant Scalia. Long may he rant and spew his intolerance across the land. The more Americans hear it, the more, I am convinced, they will reject it.