Super Congress = Super Bad, Bad, Bad

Just when you thought that the debt ceiling falsehood could not get any worse for the American people, it gets worse. And if you aren't sure how bad it was, check this list out:

• You're fucked
• The rich get richer

No, seriously...

• Trillions (it looks like three trillion now) in spending cuts - cuts in programs that we rely on
• Maybe cuts in Social Security and Medicare too
• Maybe huge tax increases on the middle class (they are closing YOUR loopholes, not the ones on private jets)
• Huge tax cuts for the wealthy

I think I like the first list better. But goddammit, this is such a depressing list. You know, Democrats have two thirds of the elected government. It's hard to realize that, based on the pixels above. And what's even worse is: this deal apparently contains a provision for a "Super Congress." 

A "Super Congress" is, besides a stupid-ass name, a committee of twelve politicians. Six from the Senate, and six from the House. Of the twelve, six will be Republicans, and six will be Democrats. An even split. Their job will be to fix the deficit. They will do it with a simple majority, meaning seven votes are needed to make it legislation. If they don't agree, automatic "triggers" will begin austerity cuts to federal spending. You know, shit like your Social Security check.

Now, I thought I lived in a fucking democracy. Apparently, I was foolishly misled. I seem to live in Weinmar Germany instead. Really? We are going to take the spending decisions away from the roughly 550 ELECTED people in Congress, and give it to twelve selected super-congress men/women? This is bullshit in so many ways.

First, it is bullshit that all but 12 members of Congress are abdicated of their responsibility. How ANY member, who was elected to represent their district can stand by and allow this is beyond me. As far as I can figure, if you are a member of Congress and not on this committee, you shouldn't get a paycheck. If you are a member of Congress and not fighting this tooth and nail, you should be voted out next election, because you are choosing to NOT represent your constituents AT ALL. Not even a pretense.

Second, it is bullshit because there are MORE THAN 12 STATES. Jesus Murphy Christ! Are we really proposing that monumental decisions around taxing and spending get made by representation from 12 states AT MOST? And whose to say that it will even be 12 states? A state like California, or Texas has more than enough representatives to fill a twelve-seat committee. No, no, no...this can't be allowed. If you are living in a state that gets hit hard by this committee's cuts, and you have NO REPRESENTATION on this committee? Or, if this committee raises your taxes without representation? C'mon, 8th grade social studies tells you how un-American this is.

Third...50/50? What the fuck do we have elections for? Why not just send a Democrat and a Republican from each state in the first place? But we don't do that, because WE HAVE FUCKING ELECTIONS! No no...it makes my head hurt. We elect these fuckers. Sometimes there are more Republicans, and sometimes there are more Democrats. That is how a republic works. This arbitrary division of equal sides is undemocratic.

Fourth, fucking Democrats! A 50/50 split between Democrats and Republicans means there will ALWAYS be a conservative Democrat who will vote with the Republicans on fiscal matters. You think there won't be a Joe Lieberman, an Evan Baye, a Ben Nelson, a Diane Feinstein? Or any of the hundreds of Democrats who will always do the bidding of the corporate oligarchy? Remember, they only need ONE Democratic vote in a simple majority, because the Republicans will always vote in lockstep. One of the Dems, probably at least half, will be a conservative, corporate robot, Wall Street ballsack-licker that will sell us down the river in a heartbeat. Fuck!

This is a disaster. This is a usurpation of our democracy, of our republican form of government. This is bullshit! That this is a plan that is touted in public shows how much the politicians of both parties disdain us. If we allow this without massive protest, and without primary losses for supporters of the Super Congress, then we don't deserve the mantle of American.

Super Congress is super bad for America. These feckless politicians who propose and support this are super worthless and should be super fired. The primary election is where we fire people in our republican democracy. Fire them all! Fire the political torpedoes in the primaries. Look for those challengers now. 

It would be hard to do worse.

The Cult of Compromise, the Myth of Centrism and the Quest for Independents

I swear, if I hear the president, a pundit or blogger use the word "compromise" in any way that is not derisive, I will spray my laptop with green puke while my head spins. If I hear the word "centrist," that puke will boil and turn purple. And, if I hear again how the President is a genius because he's locking up those "independent" voters by being so moderate - my fucking head will explode.

This is a narrative from the 1990s, this talk of independents, centrism and compromise. This narrative in the 1990s brought you Clinton's triangulation, with banking deregulation and millions of jobs shipped overseas. And yet in the flush economic times of that bygone decade, it was passed off as the political genius of Bill Clinton. What it was, was a bipartisan sellout to the same oligarchs who are now using the same narrative to finish the robbery, and take America back to Gilded Age economics. And the Media in America is part and parcel of the robbery.

And by the media I mean largely cable and network TV news. There are plenty of blogs that tell the story. I am partial to the Young Turks version of events, but there are several good articles on the Huffington Post, Alternet and in other publications. Jon Stewart makes fun of the media, and there are media critics who have also pointed out how they worship compromise and centrism as positions free of value or ideology. And that's the problem. These terms, compromise, centrist and independent [voters] have ceased to have meaningful definitions in the second decade of the 21st century.

Let's work backwards, and take "independents" first. I see this as a coded word, one that includes race. When politicians and especially pundits say "independent voters" they mean white, middle class voters, generally in the midwest. I am speaking not from some deep academic research, but as a media consumer. These are the voters who have not made up their minds between the two parties. The media generally paints these as "centrist" voters too, and that may have been true in the 1990s.

In the 1990s, these were "soccer moms." They were concerned about education and public safety, and a little suspicious of the government. They were split on issues like choice and gay rights, depending largely on their religious identity, but voted largely on the interests of their families. Bill Clinton was able to successfully go after these soccer moms mainly because he could speak to their concerns. These families expect the economy and the country to work for them, because they are part of the dominant culture. And in the 1990s, it largely did, so wedge issues and dog whistles were a big part of going after these votes.

I don't think this group is the same any more, and their issues are not the same either. If you look at who would qualify as "independent," look at the elderly. A majority of them voted for Obama and the Dems in 2008, but went for Tea Party Republicans in 2010. By working to cut Social Security and Medicare, Obama leaves the door open for Romney to point that out over and over again in the 2012 election. Look at the under 25 vote. They largely agree with more liberal positions. They don't "swing" so much between voting Democratic or Republican. They swing between voting Democratic and not voting at all. Political leaders and their advocates can tsk-tsk all they want about this demographic's civic engagement, but it won't matter. The bottom line is that Obama and the Dems need their votes, not the other way around. This group also turned out in 2008, but not in 2010.

There is another demographic that "swings" this way - the Latino vote. They share some cultural values with conservative Republicans, but have been vilified so much by the right wing that they are lost to them. This demographic also came out and voted, to a degree, for Obama and the Dems in 2008. However, they largely stayed home in 2010. The other thing completely left on the table in 2010 was Latino citizens who were eligible to vote, but didn't bother to register. It is true that Republican governors and state legislatures worked hard to suppress this voting bloc. But where was the push-back from the Democrats? Latino voters know the Republicans hate them. They're not sure about the Democrats. They are independent as they wait for Democratic leadership to push for policies that they want, like the DREAM Act, and then actually fight for it effectively.

I've said it in several recent posts - Latino Americans are the fastest rising demographic. If most of the eligible Latino voters went Democratic, Dems would have Florida and Texas. They would also take districts in the midwest and the south that only Howard Dean could dream of. I believe they leave these votes behind because they think the soccer moms they lust after share the xenophobia that drives Republican politics, and they might be right. But guess what...with 9% unemployment you are not going to get their votes anyway. These folks are feeling the pressure of changing demographics and a changing economy. They feel their cultural dominance slipping, and they'll blame the black guy in the White House.

A changing nation means a changing face of independent voters. The soccer moms will vote for Romney, accept it Dems. Accept it and move on. Give up Indiana, and take Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Texas instead. Independents are not necessarily "centrist" anymore. These are groups that have issues that are in sync with the Democratic Party platform - fight for them!

And, the way that the term "centrist" is used is virtually meaningless. If pundits want to argue that Obama is taking the political center, the fair question, which is never asked is "center of what?" Bill Clinton was the master of "triangulation." He would have his party establish a position, find out the Republican's position and find a place somewhere in the middle, the "center" if you will. But he seemed to have a position to begin with. Our current president doesn't even stake out a position. He rushes to adopt the Republican position on the issue, and then move to the center from there. The House Progressive Caucus, about 100 members, is NEVER consulted. Their positions are never part of the triangle. The "center" of today's political spectrum is between the initial Republican position, and the one they drag the Democratic leadership to in the end.

It seems centrist to come into a fight with a real position, and then find middle ground. But we have a floating center, and an executive that seems to have being in the center as the main goal of any legislation. Centrism should not be the goal, it is the compromise. The center in a two party system should not be the midpoint between John Boehner and the loudest Tea Party activist. But that is what we have today. Our current Democratic leadership is offering MORE than the Republicans' earlier demands for lifting the debt ceiling, but Obama is willing to offer a "grand bargain" that moves to a "center" that is further right. A center that is different issue by issue is one thing, but a center that moves dramatically with every issue is no longer a center, it is a line with an arrow that always points to the right.

And this speaks to the cult of "compromise." This seems to be the sole goal of this current administration. President Obama thinks that if he compromises on every issue, he will be seen as "centrist," and that will win him the votes of the "independents." But "compromise" is NOT a goal in and of itself. It is what you do to get as much of your goal accomplished as you can. If all you do is compromise, and you don't fight for any positions, your policy goals will always fail.

Look at health care. This was, I believed at the time, a well-intended attempt to address an urgent problem for Americans, and for American competitiveness. It ended up being a pre-emptive bailout for the hospital groups and the medical insurance industry. The for-profit system was unsustainable, and it is now on federal life support for at least a decade. And big pharma got a bonanza in the deal. We basically got bupkis. The debate started with single-payer "off the table," and ended with Obama yelling at the Democrats in the Senate to make sure there was no drug reimportation. The "compromise" was over 100 Republican additions to the bill, more restriction on abortion, restrictions on medical treatment for immigrants and my health care costs continuing to skyrocket. And it was passed by reconciliation! But no public option, or Medicare for all...nothing that would threaten a CEOs bonus. All the "compromise" was for nothing, because it got NO REPUBLICAN VOTES!! (Actually one, I think, in the House.)

Look, asking the Republicans what they want is not a compromise. It is a capitulation. Even worse, it is cover for giving the corporate oligarchy whatever it wants under the guise of compromise. How can it be considered a compromise if 98% of the country gets robbed over and over again, and if half of the country NEVER gets what it wants.

Compromise CANNOT be a position. It is what you do FROM a position. It appears, however, that this White House has bowed to the god named Compromise, and has no other principles but to serve this deity. And this will make their Wall Street masters happy, but it will cost them the election in 2012.

Their constant compromise makes them seem weak and without principle (with the added disastrous weight of it may be true). Their constant lunging for the mobile center keeps the debate on the opposition's terms, centered around Republican talking points, not equally valid Democratic ones. And their deference to the independent voters of the 1990s will miss the mark in the 21st century. Those soccer moms are suffering from unemployment and underwater houses, and the White House has left those problems to posterity. And, without the energized participation of other groups left on the table, Obama will lose in a squeaker to a despicable Mitt Romney.

Compromise, centrism and independent voters are the three pillars of Obama's reelection strategy. They don't help us, the bottom 98% of the American economy, but the President thinks we will be duped into seeing him as reasonable, mature, and not a scary Muslim black guy. He's wrong. We now see him as weak, rudderless and without principles. And by always agreeing ("compromising," pardon me, I suppose I should shut up and eat my fucking peas!) with the Republican talking points he misses the key issue of the last election, and the one upcoming:

Jobs.

Gang of Six Should Wear Masks - They're Robbing You

If there was ever a time to call your reps in Congress, it is now. You are about to get robbed blind. You are about to get mugged, beaten, held by the ankles and shaken until the last of your change pours out on the street. Then, those sons 'o bitches will laugh and congratulate themselves as they scoop that change into bags with "swag" crossed out, and "Top 2%" stenciled in.

The Gang of Six, six US senators, three Democrats and Three Republicans (until one walked out), have come up with a plan to address the deficit and bring both sides together in this debate over the debt ceiling. President Obama has expressed his love for this plan, as have many Democratic senators. Only Bernie Sanders (independent from Vermont) is an audible Senate voice in opposition. He will be ignored by just about everyone who is not on talk radio. All signs are that the Senate will gladly pass it, "maybe even with 60 votes" one gleeful senator said.

So...what's up my ass so far that my head is turning three shades of purple you ask? Seriously, most people I know don't care about the debt ceiling or deficits beyond the headlines, and are glad that the President is doing something about it. Or, they are glad that the Congress is fighting the Muslim President and his plans for out of control spending as part of implementing Sharia Law. Why am I so pissed?

Because we are about to get a TON of our money taken, and given to the top 2%. Right in front of our noses. And, because this robbery is facilitated by two branches of government that are just making this crisis up. Totally. And and, because they think that we are stupid enough to fall for it, and powerless enough to have to sit back and take it. And and and...both sides think we will show up and vote for them. The leaders of both parties might as well just spit in our faces and call us dumb-fucks.

And honestly, I was falling for part of it. You know, the other day, Bill Clinton told the story of how the Gingritch Republican House toyed with the idea of not lifting the debt ceiling. He said that he made it clear that he would love that fight. He felt sure that he could have made the case to the American people that the debt ceiling has NOTHING to do with current spending. Because it doesn't. He was going to explain to the American people that this was simply allowing the Executive branch to cut the checks and pay for things that Congress ALREADY BOUGHT! He was sure, as he said, that his White House was smart enough to make that case successfully.

When I read that, I did the forehead slap. God dammit! These fuckers are conflating current spending levels with their OWN PAST SPENDING. These fucking people, these thieves in suits, are threatening to not pay the bills that they ran up unless we get robbed! And when I say "bills that they ran up" I understand that it was government spending in part on my behalf, but they voted for that spending, and now want to cut up the Visa card and light our retirements on fire. So please understand before I rant on like a lunatic, that cuts in domestic spending have nothing to do with the money that is already spent. It has been spent. The debt ceiling is the equivalent of the bill.

So with this absolute fucking facade in mind, how are the Gang of Six proposing to deal with the deficit? Well of course, they are going to cut Medicare. They are also going to cut Social Security.

Ahhh...I have raged about this so often that I feel almost too tired to press the keys on this subject again. But I will. Social Security is not part of this deficit or debt ceiling AT ALL! It is separate from tax collection, and has over a two trillion dollar surplus. The problem is that the SS fund has been raided by these same fuckers who are in favor of the Gang of Six's plan. They have left US Treasury bonds in place of the cash. Or, as Cat Food Commissioner Alan "All Americans Are Tit-Suckers" Simpson calls them: "worthless IOUs."

Funny, nobody calls the ones that China or Saudi Arabia holds "worthless IOUs." Just the ones held by the  hard working families of America. They want to tear up wads and wads of these so that they can transfer that money to the richest Americans. I hate this. I have looked at my SS statements and have figured that according to the Cat Food Commission's report, their plan would cost me about 50,000 dollars. 

Goddammit, I can't afford to give Paris Hilton $50,000 dollars of my retirement! I may not be able to retire as it is. And, I may not live to get health care through Medicare if they raise the age.

And that is also in the Gang of Six plan, raise Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67. Now, Medicare is also separate from our taxes. But I am convinced that, unlike Social Security, Medicare is in huge trouble. Medical costs are rising at a rate that makes paying the bills for retirees unsustainable. Under the current system, Medicare WILL crash in 10 to 15 years.

But is the solution to cut the legs out from under the most vulnerable part of our population? Apparently, for these so-called leaders that we have. But what's stupid about that is that none of this will change people getting sick. They will get care, and if they can't afford it WE ALL PAY ANYWAY! That's what's wrong with the damn system now! And, the Affordable Care Act did not fix this. A public option may have, but national single payer will. Medicare for all is the answer. Either that or Soylent Green.

Yes, cutting SS and Medicare is a right wing wet dream, and it is about to become a reality under a Democratic president and senate. But that is not the only insidious way that we Americans are going to be robbed of our money. When this passes, we are going to see money transfer from us, the bottom 98% to the top 2%. It will happen in a rush.

The Gang of Six propose lowering the top tax rate to 29%, and raising taxes on the middle class.

Wait, you say. The Gang of Six plan lowers everyone's tax rate, and closes some of those evil loopholes, like the corporate jet deduction, and like oil subsidies.

No no no...it closes all of YOUR deductions. It takes away part of your mortgage deduction. It closes the deduction for medical expenses your employer doesn't cover. It closes the deduction for your retirement savings (which isn't really a deduction, it is just a deferment. Now that money will be taxed twice).

But hey, they are going to lower the corporate tax rate to maybe 23%.

Mother fuckers! This plan is going to cause real pain to the average American. I will certainly pay more taxes. I could live with that, except that while I'm giving up...I dunno'...food, the wealthiest Americans will get at least a 5% reduction in their tax rate.

This is so fucked up. And if you watch CNN you would think that this is some kind of grand compromise. If you listen to White House staffers, you would think this is some kind of victory for the cause of moderation and responsibility. No! It is a victory for the financial elite. They are betting that YOU are SO STUPID that you cannot tell the difference. And here's the real insult to you...

...this is how they (the Democrats anyway) plan to win in 2012. Well, I got news for you, Mr. President; there's something that people are going to do before they vote in 2012: pay their fucking taxes! If you raise them, and lower it on the top earners, the people will notice, and will hate you and the Democrats. If they are not paying attention now, they will pay attention by April 15, 2012. If, when the law is written, these middle class tax increases don't take effect until the following tax year...well, then the Democrats are just a bunch of cynical fucks who care only about their own seats and blowing the rich. They know they can't stand behind this robbery, so they will delay it until after the election.

Either way, we are not as stupid as the Democratic leadership thinks we are. We know when we are getting screwed, even if we don't know all the details. This will cripple the Dems in 2012 when they should be mopping the floor with the Republicans. Mr. President: you will LOSE in 2012 if you cut SS and Medicare and raise working class taxes while lowering taxes on the rich. Mitt Romney will grab all of your beloved independents, who won't care that you were "reasonable," but will care that their taxes got raised and that grandma can't afford basic health care or food.

And your "base," well, we're split. Read the comments on the Huffington Post (that you are so quick to thumb your nose at). This is not AlterNet, Huffpo is the Democratic bloc, and you have split it. Half think you are a genius, not for what you have done, but because of the brilliant chess move they expect to come. And the other half are like me - they think you are in the bag for the rich, and have fucked us hard. We think you disdain us, and we see evidence of this all the time. We hear you say (especially since you have made it a point to emphasize it lately) "you progressives see the glass half empty."

"You progressives." Let that sink in a minute. That's like when white folks say "you people." The superiority just drips from the phrase. Here's my interpretation: "you fucking peons will eat shit and like it. Don't you understand that the CEOs pay my goddam bills? Now, shut the fuck up and vote for me." And that's the problem that our genius, chess-master president doesn't appreciate - the fucking progressives got him elected! They were the on-the-ground, and on-the-web energy behind his candidacy. They are not motivated, in fact they are depressed, and though the Wall Street money will come again, the volunteers will not.

He NEEDS our votes - not the other way around. The most prominent argument for Obama on Huffington Post now is, "well, it will be a lot worse if a Republican is elected." But that is the argument by people who are into politics, who know that politics is a choice between two evils. We discern between minutia, like which candidate will be better for Supreme Court nominations, but that is not the bulk of voters.

So, Democrats, understand the peril. First, your (our?...I'm having a hard time claiming the mantle now) party is about to rob you blind. The Gang of Six plan is the final insult. If Dems help pass it, and if the President signs it, then you know they worked for the transfer of your wealth to the richest Americans. They worked hard to make you poorer, and the rich richer. To make you less healthy, and less secure in your retirement. You will know that they took your goddam money and gave it to bank CEOs and hedge fund managers. They gave it to Paris Hilton. Second, Obama will lose and the Senate will go Republican.

Call your reps. Let them know that you will not vote for anyone that helps the plan of the Gang of Six. Tell them that you know that the plan takes money from you and gives it to the rich, and you can't stand it anymore. And do what you can to support primary challengers in the Democratic party. Go Tea Party on their asses, and make them fear the "progressive" base.

Remember, we are being robbed, now! Stop the robbery!

No Shit, Sherlock!

My usual chest thumping and poop throwing over the President takes a little twist. I will, of course, criticize this President for betraying the progressive groundswell that elected him. But as George Bush so elequently quoted: "fool me once, uh...shame...shame on you. Fool me twice...uh...won't get fooled again!"

By now, we know who Obama is. He is a somewhat right-of-Reagan blue-dog Democrat, a lousy poker player and either a weak, weak politician, or a shill for corporate oligarchy. I choose the latter.

So why all the shocked headlines about the trial balloon floated by the White House over social security?

An anonymous White House source suggested that social security cuts could be included in budget negotiations over the debt ceiling. Commentators and bloggers freaked out, and the White House quickly backtracked with a non-denial denial. "The President's position hasn't changed since April" said Carney.

The point is, the President's position in April on Social Security is the same as the President's position in 2009 when he appointed his conservative-stacked Cat Food Commission (Debt Commission). The likes of Alan You are All Tit-Suckers Simpson have been dying to cut SS and Medicare for decades. President Obama LOVES this commission. He refers to it all the time.

Remember when he made that tough-sounding speech a couple of months ago? The one right after Paul Ryan announced his plan to destroy America? After he talked about how horrible Ryan was for wanting to pummel seniors, and how America was better than that, he dropped in that the way to go was the way of the Debt Commission.

So what is in the Cat Food Commission's recommendations? How's about adding at least four years to the Social Security retirement age. Now, I've done the math, based on the statements I get from the Social Security Administration. That would cost me about $50,000. I'm just an average guy. My household earns well under $100,000 per year. This is equivalent to a 50 grand tax increase in my shortened retirement. Guess what other middle and working class tax increases are in the Commission's report...home mortgage deduction - gone. This raises taxes on EVERY homeowner in America, the bulk of which are not in the top 2%. Who gets taxes lowered in this report? Yup - corporations.

This report was a forgone conclusion, due to the fact that it was stacked with conservatives. And Obama has never said a bad word about it. He is all in for cutting Social Security, and has put Medicare "on the table." How can anyone be surprised?

And, this will cost him the election in 2012. Republicans will get to campaign on "Obama, the Marxist Muslim, wants to take away your Social Security." And they will be right on the Social Security. They will take the elderly vote, in spite of Ryan's plan, and depress the left, who are pretty depressed already.

So duh! bloggers and cable talking heads...Obama has always wanted to cut Social Security. It is total right wing insanity, but he is consistent. It is where he has staked his claim as "an adult in the room." Or more recently as he admonished us all to "eat our peas." He is all for letting CEOs off the hook, and for making us eat cat food in our old age. He has not wavered on this.

The story is: why don't the Democratic voters primary the shit out of this guy?

Bronze Age States Keep Women in Their Place

So, I was reading the interwebs, and caught a story that I had also heard mentioned on the radio. The story involves a 15 year old girl, Rennie Gibbs, who has the unfortunate circumstance of living in Mississippi. She had the further unfortunate circumstance of becoming pregnant in her early teens. She had the further misfortune of having a miscarriage.

Ready for the really unfortunate part? Because of her miscarriage, she has been charged with murder, and faces a mandatory life sentence in prison if convicted.

No, I did not keyboard stutter, life - in - prison.

The state of Mississippi, and its Bronze Age legislature, have passed laws that make mothers criminally responsible for the progress of the fetus.  One mistake, and you could face life in prison.

Other states have done this too. In Alabama, at least 40 women have had cases brought against them for what happened to their fetuses. In Indiana, Bei Bei Shuai is serving time in prison for fetus related crimes. Now these are not the only states, mind you. Georgia is currently crafting a law that puts the onus on the mother to PROVE that ANY miscarriage was not her fault. Essentially, mothers who go through that awful event will be guilty until proven innocent if the state decides to pursue the case.

What the fuck, conservatives? Will you stoop to NO DEPTHS in your quest to subjugate women? Many say that these laws are all tied to the abortion issue - forcing a recognition of fetal personhood upon the state, and eventually the Supreme Court which will then overturn Roe V Wade.

But think about that in terms of the women who are now serving prison time for miscarriages, or facing prison time: abortion is legal in all 50 states. It is legal to intentionally terminate your pregnancy. How can it be illegal to accidentally terminate your pregnancy? It doesn't make any fucking sense. It is not logical.

In some of these states (38 have at least introduced fetal homicide laws for consideration in their legislatures) the intent of the laws was to protect pregnant women from domestic abuse. If their spouse/partner beat them so bad that it caused a miscarriage, the batterer would face charges for killing the fetus as well as the battery. These laws are now being stretched by conservatives to go after mothers with drug problems, or who don't leave dangerous or abusive situations. No no, don't HELP the mother, fuck her up good after the tragedy of a miscarriage.

This is the kind of shit that happens when your country goes so, so far right. We here in American have let the spectrum shift so far to the conservative side that we are practically traveling back in time. In fact we are traveling back as far as the early Bronze Age.

This level of control of women, and in particular their reproductive systems, is not just about abortion. It is not about morality - it is about control. There is precedence for it in the Bible, and in other ancient texts, but the religious right quotes to Bible often, so let's stick to that. This is about the subjugation of women, but also controlling women as property.

That's right - property.

The Bible is full of subjugation quotes: "wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord." (Collosians 3:18)  There are also passages about how horrible it is to have a nagging wife (you know, one who actually has an opinion), and about stoning to death women who commit adultery.

But there are also many passages about how women and their sexuality are bartered. In the story if Dinah, she is raped by a guest so the family demands cash and marriage. In Deuteronomy, it explains that rape is okey-dokey as long as marriage follows. Why is it okay to rape a family member as long as you marry afterwards?

Because of property!

Not only are women property, but the estate is passed to the sons in the patriarchal Bronze Age world of the Mediterranean. If there are bastard sons popping up here and there, then there are claims on the clan's property from outside the clan! Fuck no! If you have perchance knocked up my daughter (with a potential male heir), then you better fucking marry her, or, as the bible says, we'll stone you both to death (Deuteronomy 22:24).

Baal dammit! Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Indiana conservatives are not just following the moral code of the Bible, they are subjecting the citizens of their states to BRONZE AGE VALUES, and making them law! I've got news for you fuckers, it is not 1000 BCE! Property is not passed down through sons anymore as a rule. And a woman's womb is NOT, like it was in Bronze Age Palestine, the legal will for the clan!

The idea of subjugating women  in order to control their reproduction is ancient. Protecting the clan property meant making the women of the clan property. Women as chattel is an idea codified in the Bible, and the Bible is where some of these knuckle-dragging conservatives get their ideas. They couch these ideas in the term "morality."

And it is easy to argue the morality of protecting little tiny babies - even to protect them from unfit parents. And taking a position against abortion is a reasonable position. I disagree, and distinguish between a dependent entity and an independent life, but it is a position that can be argued with reason. But it is not logical, nor reasonable to jail somebody for an accidental occurrence that would be perfectly legal if done on purpose. It is also not reasonable to have laws that apply ONLY to one half of the population. Unless, the intent of the laws are to take rights away from that half.

Besides, how are you going to apply these laws? Do the police departments, or the state patrol in each of these states investigate every miscarriage? Do doctors have to now report miscarriages to the state, like they were an emergency room gunshot wound? If a woman is seen having a glass of wine at a restaurant, potentially within the window of her pregnancy (like at the beginning, before she knew she was pregnant), is she now eligible for a mandatory life sentence in Mississippi if she miscarries?

This is fucking crazy. This is adjudicating from the Bronze Age. This is not protecting children, this is state control of a women's reproductive systems, of part of their bodies. This is state control of women. The clan from the ancient Levant has risen again to keep women as chattel. What else can I say, except if you are a woman...

...get the fuck out of Mississippi (or Alabama, or Indiana, or Georgia...)

Casey Anthony Civics Lesson

I have been subject to the national outrage since the Casey Anthony verdict. The "not guilty" verdict of this three-year media spectacle has shocked the national conscience. Nancy Grace was apoplectic. Most Americans point the finger at those 12 horrible people, those who practically abetted the murder of a poor little girl...I'll paraphrase for America...

...those fucking jurors.

And there's where I part company with America, including members of my family. I think America needs to go back to middle school for some more civics lessons. I believe these jurors did exactly what they were supposed to do. They heard the evidence, they followed the judges instructions and delivered a verdict. That it was not the verdict that America wanted is beside the point. For the most part, the American media wants to convict everyone who "fits the description."

To recap, in case you've been living in a box, Casey Anthony was on trial for the murder of her toddler-aged daughter. She was painted in the media as a wanton slut who partied all the time and neglected her child. She was also said to be an unstable, that is - mentally ill - person, generally unfit for parenthood. The theory was that the child was disrupting her party-girl lifestyle, so she killed her daughter to free up her social calendar. As media consumers, we get this picture of Casey Anthony, and it looks bad. It may be accurate, but it looks terrible. She "fit the description."

So here's problem number one with the "jury sucks" mantra - they don't get to consider any of the party-girl behavior. Unless the prosecutor can tie her unparenting directly to the criminal event, it is considered prejudicial. The jury most likely didn't consider her parental behavior prior to the crime. They would be instructed by the judge to ignore any media reports they heard. They could only consider what the prosecutor brought to bear on the case.

Maybe the prosecutor did a great job, you say, and the jury was prejudiced.

That's problem number two. Who is prejudiced against a little white girl? The verdict was unanimous, not hung by one juror who thought Casey Anthony was cute. Juries in the past have been prejudicial, especially in the South. Just think back (again, to middle school) when you had to read To Kill A Mockingbird. White juries have wrongfully convicted black people in the past, based on racism. Activist juries have acquitted people despite judges' instructions, even in recent memory. For instance, there have been cases where marijuana dispensaries have been raided, the owners busted, and the laws and evidence clear; yet the juries who disagree with the law have delivered a "not guilty" verdict.  But I really don't think that there were twelve activists in favor of child murder, and therefor defied judicial instructions to follow laws pertaining to child murder.

Alright, you say, it was just a goddam weird case, with shaky evidence, but that bitch killed her kid and the jury should have seen through that, and been activist on the side of justice.

That is tempting, but I've got two words: Jonbenet Ramsey. Jonbenet Ramsey was the six year old beauty pageant "star" who was murdered in brutal fashion in 1996. Careers were made and ruined over this case. This case was easily as media saturated as the Anthony case. The dad killed her, to cover up sexual abuse. The mom killed her, or helped cover it up, because she wanted to protect her lifestyle. The son killed his sister because he was crazy. All of these charges flew through the cable-sphere and tabloid pages like an Arizona wildfire. EVERYONE was sure that those sick, perverted Ramseys killed their daughter. But the DA's office never indicted. They never had the evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt." Still, those Ramseys fit the description.

By the way, the Ramseys always contended that an intruder did it. Please...how lame is that?

In the early 2000s, Patsy Ramsey, the mom, died of cancer knowing she was one of the most hated people in America, and that anyone she ever knew in her whole life at least suspected she was a monster. Would, or should a jury have convicted her?

In 2008, the Boulder CO district attorney's office announced that new DNA evidence showed that an unknown person, not the parents or brother, was the last person to handle Jonbenet Ramsey. The DA wrote in a letter to the Ramseys that there was no way that the DNA could have "innocently" been in the three different places of the murdered girl's clothes. The strongest evidence now is that an intruder kidnapped, beat, sexually assaulted and strangled Jonbenet Ramsey to death. New technology has proven that though were weird, pageant-fixated parents, the Ramseys probably loved their kid and were crushed when she was murdered by an intruder. They endured years of torment as the media convicted them of the most horrible crime over and over again. Detectives and District Attorneys resigned and were fired because they could not convict the Ramseys.

But in the Jonbenet Ramsey case, the system worked. The DA did not prosecute because the evidence was not courtroom worthy. And, although the parents were not spared the public conviction by the media, they had their freedom preserved because we value individual liberty. We have a strong standard that few other nations in the world enjoy: innocent until proven guilty. This puts a heavy burden on the state to make sure they have done their job, and done it correctly. And this is the case too, with Casey Anthony.

She may be a crazy bitch who killed her own kid so that she could continue the frat-house party lifestyle. But that is not the fault of this jury. It may be that the prosecutor fucked up. It may be that the police bungled evidence or procedure. It may be that the judge's instructions were so restrictive that barring a videotape of the murder and a signed confession, the jury was not allowed to convict. But twelve unanimous citizens were not prejudiced, or stupid, or activist in this case. They erred on the side of freedom, which is how our system is designed.

There are many recently released death row inmates in Illinois (and other states) that would agree. New DNA technology is proving that it was impossible for them to have committed the crimes that they were awaiting execution for. Illinois recently did away with the death penalty after having to release over a dozen prisoners who were awaiting death. I bet they wish they had had a jury as thorough and forthright as the one who acquitted Casey Anthony. They were innocent men who fit the description and almost were killed by the state. How many have been killed because they fit the description.

Did Casey Anthony get away with murder? Maybe. If so, I'm not happy about that. I share the outrage that a small child could be killed, duct-taped and buried with no consequence. But don't blame the jury - the citizens who give up part of their lives to serve the cause of justice. If anyone is to blame, blame the professionals in the justice system who dropped the ball.

And if you blame the system, find me a better one, and we'll talk.

They Keep Pulling Me Back In!

I read an article by Frank Rich in New York Times Magazine, linked from the Huffington Post.

It was basically a treatise on Obama's failure to effectively deal with the financial disaster of 2008, and how that will fuck him in 2012. Great...now I have to spout off again.

No, seriously, I had inwardly vowed to move on; to not make this blog (who maybe one other person but me reads) an Obama-bashing rag-made-of-electrons devoted to criticizing the President. Sometimes I feel like it verges on obsession. But I keep getting pulled back in.

One point that Rich makes in his article, the one that spurred me to vent yet again, is that Obama could very likely lose to the clown that comes out of the Republican primary car. DC Democrats think, still, that this is impossible. They are wrong. And I agree with much of what is in Rich's Article, but think that the situation is even worse than he is saying.

I see Obama as a massive underdog at this point. There are several key things working against him, and the question remains: why? Is he just unlucky? Is he just not that good at politics? Is he just not that smart? Or, is he corrupted by the system, and part of a snow-job that is no longer blinding the American people?

Obama has these factors working against him, many of which I have railed against in previous posts. These are the main five reasons why Obama will lose the 2012 election. I will flesh each one out after the list:

1. The myth of bipartisanship
2. Ham-fisted duplicity
3. Looking Forward
4. Jobs, goddammit, jobs!
5. Adopting the views of the opposition

The myth of bipartisanship
The President is oft heard saying that the American people are tired of the rancor of Washington, and want their leaders to compromise and get things done. And polls show, that if you phrase it that way, that we Americans are generally in favor of that sentiment.

But we're not idiots. We see how "compromise" Obama-style is being used. It is an excuse to sell out to corporate interests. Compromise by Obama has an official definition:

• comp-ro-mise (verb); caving in to your opponents views at least 90% of the way, making sure that no CEO loses a nickel but probably screwing the average American. Hiding a massive sellout to corporate interests under the guise of "getting things done," then shrugging shoulders and saying "what else could we do?"

Many of us on the "left" do not want this much compromise. We expect a fight over the big issues. And we expect that in these fights, our side actually throws some punches. I have watched winning issue after issue flow by this President un-fought. Public option, unemployment, tax cuts for the rich, Medicare (now "on the table") and Social Security, the DREAM Act and others. These are issues that not only affect the well-being of working Americans, but could be used to beat the shit out of the Republicans. These issues could move the spectrum left for a change. 

And that seems to be the point. This President seems to be working as hard as the Republican leadership to consolidate the massive corporate gains made during the last 40 years. By not fighting on issues of economic justice, he makes it clear which side he's on. We see it, and it will hurt him in 2012.

Ham-fisted duplicity

All politicians lie. I get pissed by the hypocrisy, but I don't get surprised. For instance, when Anthony Wiener was caught lying about his sexting, I was not phased in the slightest. Well maybe a little about what a tech idiot he was.

And the President has certainly gone back on his word. He criticized the deals that Bush made with drug company lobbyists, and then made an even worse deal with the same lobbyist, Billy Tauzin, whom he had painted as Satan and Hitler during his 2008 campaign. He ran on change, but hired the most conservative and DC insider group as his inner circle that he could find. Change was a lie. A flat-out lie, and I was a huge sucker. It was what I wanted to hear, and I bought in. Now I'm pissed, and I bitch about it.

My problem is how butt-hurt the President acts when he gets criticism from the left for his duplicity, and his antithesis of change. He deserves all he gets and more, and I hate it when he tells me he brought "change," and how "nothing is good enough for the whiney left." I don't want to hear it. I elected you, Mr. President, and get to complain. You either make my life better, or suck it up and take the barrage. But whatever else, don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. Don't cave in without a fight and tell me it is the best deal you could get. Don't give the large bank's CEOs everything and tell me you are looking out for the average American as our houses drown and we can't find work. Right now you are Wall Street's guy, and you have a lot of work to do to be anything else.

Looking Forward

I have written before about being allowed my own personal reign of terror. I want, as a Democratic voter and an American citizen, the same level of accountability that the banks got, and the Bush Administration got - none. I should, based on what the Obama justice department has done so far, be able to torture, murder, kidnap, commit fraud, rob pension funds and even bring down the world economy with no consequence from the DOJ.

But when Obama "looks forward, not backward" he does this selectively. It is the rich and powerful that are not held to account. CEOs of the biggest banks robbed us blind, and their consequence was record bonuses. The Bush Administration broke many laws...shit, they tortured people! Their consequence was professorships, book deals and the expensive lecture circuit. But the Obama DOJ has looked back on some fronts.

Since taking office, the Obama justice department has seen through the incarceration of over 300,000 illegal immigrants. It has raided, closed and arrested the operators of many medical marijuana dispensaries. Our prisons, rapidly privatizing, now hold a greater percentage of our population than any other industrialized nation on earth - most for non-violent drug crimes. 

Rob billions from home-owners and share-holders? You are a coveted potential campaign donor. Get caught with some weed? Jailed and fucked. We see this disparity in how justice is meted out. It looks like we are Bolivia 50 years ago. It looks like you, Mr. President, have great disdain for the average American. We expected that from Bush, we hate it from you. 

Jobs, for the love of god man...Jobs!

It is the number one issue on every American's mind. We all know someone who wants to be working, but can't find a job. We all know someone who has lost their house. We all know someone who is working at a job that is below their education/experience level. 

You, Mr. President, are busy working on the deficit. You are busy caving in to Republican demands that social services be cut to a public that is massively hurting due to the economy already, and are doing nothing to fight for jobs. This is killing you in the polls. Mitt Fucking Romney is on the campaign trail talking about jobs. You are trying to defend the cuts to spending. 

Jobs are the number one issue, more than two-to-one over the deficit. And, if Republicans weren't harping constantly on the deficit, or "spending," there would be seven and a half Americans that would care about the issue at all. But they all care about jobs. If you run against Romney (who made millions firing people at Bain Capital) you will lose if unemployment is still near 9%. If you get lucky, and run against a maniac like Bachmann, your chances are 50/50. No matter who it is on their side, they will say "you had your chance on this issue, and you blew it." And, they will largely be right.

Adopting the views of the opposition

And they will be right because at almost every turn, you echo the talking points of the Republicans. During the health care debate we heard you drop the public option and parrot the phrase "market-based solution." Where the wars were concerned we heard "facts on the ground." In the argument over tax cuts for the rich, you adopted supply-side economics when you caved in to Republican demands. You formed a Deficit Commission which has recommended hacking Social Security and cutting taxes for the rich and for corporations.

And most recently, you have adopted deficit reduction as your goal. And, now that you have the Republicans on the ropes over Medicare, you have instructed VP Biden to put "everything on the table," including Medicare. God dammit man! This lets your opponents OFF the ropes, and back into the ring to punch you repeatedly in the face. This isn't just weakness, or incompetence. Nobody can be this weak or incompetent. This is political malpractice, if indeed your goal is to help the average American family.

Seriously...if you are going to adopt the same military, economic and DOJ policies as the extreme, far-right Republicans, then what the fuck did we elect you for?

Oh, that's right: "change" (TM Obamacorp).

Now it's true that you were more socially liberal, as in DADT. You appointed two Justices to the Supreme Court that weren't rabid conservatives (they were moderates at best). But you haven't fought for us, for our wallet issues. We are getting hammered out here, and we need someone in our corner. Our corner is empty because you are not there. This is why you are going to lose in 2012.

You are going to lose because you didn't "change" us getting screwed, abused and fiscally beaten by the corporate elite. Fair or not, you are seen as in their corner, not ours. You are already making speeches that sound much more combative and "liberal" than even two weeks ago, and that will mollify some of us on the left. But not enough.

We are not stupid, and you seem to think we are. We know when our interests are being represented, and when they are not. We know the difference between making speeches that sound good, and actually taking actions towards a policy goal that helps working families. We know if someone is fighting for us. 

Mr. President - we don't expect you to win every fight, but we expect you to have at it. We expect you to fight with those on the far right that openly hate us, not with those of us on the left that criticize your weakness.

But I don't think it's just weakness. This president has sold out. He and his advisors see the only road to electoral victory running through the vaults of corporate donors and their lobbyists. Their goal is reelection, not service to the people. We, the bottom 98% are an annoyance with our expectations of government that actually works for us, not for Wall Street executives.

We need change. You know what's coming...

...primary the shit out of everyone!

Debt Limit Shock Doctrine

Naomi Klein wrote the book titled Shock Doctrine about the run up to the Iraq war. It was about how the Bush Administration used 911 to declare emergencies all over the place, and use the resulting shock to take away gigantic swaths of money and rights from the American people. I found it to be a great analysis of what went down, of how we gave away pretty much ALL of the Fourth Amendment, and parts of the First and most of the Eighth.

I see, clearly now, the same principle being applied to the debt limit "crisis." Our debt limit expires in September. That is over two months away. Yet we are told that the "markets" are "nervous" about what we will do. Will we raise the debt ceiling? Will we default on our debt? Will the Tea Party Republicans refuse to go along?

Oh, please! Spare me the drama.

If you don't know by now, please soak it in - there is NO QUESTION that the debt ceiling will be raised. None. Wall Street CEOs and the Chamber of Commerce (a co-owner of the Republican Party) have already made it clear that their servants in government will NOT fuck with the debt limit. Period.

No,  no, no...this crap started in February, and I saw it as another example of Tea Party muscle-flexing - a way for them to let John "Boner" know who now runs shit in the elephant party. I was curious to watch it drag on and on, and listened as pundits on both sides expressed outrage at how politicians could flirt with economic Armageddon like this. And, I was flabbergasted that the Democrats, once again, were laying down their arms and waving the white flag when they had a winner of an issue. Then I realized...

...it is all BULLSHIT!

One million percent, grade A, fertilizer quality bullshit. Neither of these fucking parties, not even the Tea Party faction (with a couple of exceptions) is going to fuck with the full "faith and credit" of the United States. No, no...this debt crisis is just like the Social Security crisis...it is another way to take money and needed services from you, and give it to the top 2%.

This so-called emergency has already taken a Democratic Party-promised TWO TRILLION dollars from you. Even though there is new talk about invoking the debt part of the 14th Amendment, there is no talk about taking back the two trillion. That is money taken from you so that the ultra-wealthy don't have to lose a nickel in increased taxes. This is a two trillion dollar transfer of wealth from the bottom 98% to the top 2%. And all from this one fake emergency.

There was an orgy of unnecessary war and tax-cut largesse, and the bill is coming due. The owners of two political parties, and of the Supreme Court don't want to pay this bill. They have instructed their government to take the money from you. And, so we don't vote everyone out of office for this grievous harm they are doing, they have invented emergencies.

The social security emergency? Fully funded through 2037. They just don't want to pay the bonds that are in the fund. The debt limit? passed multiple times during Bush's tenure by largely the same politicians. It is uncontroversial and standard procedure. But it now gets the "crisis" label to distract and panic us, and allow us to be robbed.

Fuck no! Write your rep and tell them that you know it's bullshit, and not to take a dime from you, not until the rich give a dollar. Make it clear that this is the only issue you will vote on in 2012, whether or not they used the phony debt crisis to screw you. Find that primary opponent today.

And remember - there is no debt ceiling crisis!