So, lets ring in the Christmas holiday week with some grim news about or great nation.

Republican primaries 
This week finds a new leader in the polls in Iowa: Dr. Ron Paul. What the hell happened to Gingritch? Well, thanks to serious negative ads, people realized just what an asshole he is. He did surprisingly well in the eyes of Iowa Republicans, for a while, but has always polled low nationally, including against Obama.

So, what's the deal with Republican voters? The deal is they have a clown posse to deal with. In some cases, an insane clown posse (not the proper noun, rap group ICP, but a group of mentally challenged clowns).

Take Michelle Bachman - she's deeply religious, and nuts. She'll say just about anything. What she says shows that she's dumber than a sack of doorknobs, and oblivious to just how dumb she is.

Then there's "man-on-dog" Rick Santorum, who is so full of hate for everyone not like him, AND as stupid as Bachman that, well, he's up to 10 points in the polls in Iowa.

Mittens Romney - sleazy, corrupt, plastic Wall Street hypocrite, which means Republicans would love him if he wasn't a Mormon. Seriously, around 30% of Iowa's likely caucus goers said that his Mormonism is a non-starter - they simply will not vote for a Mormon. And that's 30% who were asked by a real person, and essentially said "yeah, I'm a bigot." Think of how many more feel the same way and aren't saying it publicly.

Herman Cain - took his campaign slogans and policies from the SIMs game, and the Pokemon movie. That was what he considered "two layers deep." That and shoving women's heads down into his crotch when he had the opportunity. He led the field for a month!

Rick Perry - maybe dumber than the others combined. Seriously, this fucker shouldn't be allowed to eat with a fork. How is he the governor of Texas? Oh yeah, they elected Bush as governor there too. But Perry makes Bush look like a Rhodes Scholar.

There's a few others who are in the low single digits. They're no fun.

Which brings us to Ron Paul. Paul is now leading in Iowa, two weeks ahead of the caucus. He is now likely to win - although two weeks may be too long. Attack ads may chop him down the way they did Gingritch. What's funny, as Cenk Uygur points out on TYT, is that the pundits and the MSM are apoplectic about a likely Paul victory in Iowa. Conservative pundits are saying that if Paul wins in Iowa, that it just won't count. Wait a minute - didn't Obama set the world on fire, and fuel his eventual victory by winning the Iowa caucuses? C'mon conservatives...Paul only has a chance because your field is pathetic. Don't get me wrong, Paul's crazy too. But he is somewhat principled, and that is what almost NO POLITICIAN is anymore. People like that.

Suffer the Children
1.6 million children in the US are homeless. Children make up a majority of Americans who live below the poverty line. But don't worry, we still have the Bush tax cuts, and are cutting education and social services.

Defense Reauthorization Act
So, with overwhelming support from Democrats, the Defense Reauthorization Act was passed. The final version passed with over 80 votes in the Senate. This legislation allows for the indefinite detention of terror suspects, including American Citizens. Now, there was a provision that says American Citizens get processed by civilian criminal justice systems, so some pundits are saying this means it's no big deal. But the legislation also contains language that says NO MONEY CAN BE PUT TOWARD CIVILIAN TRIALS. Get it? That is the poison pill clause that undoes the protective language.

So, habius corpus, gone. The Fifth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process, gone. No bail? The Eighth Amendment, gone. All someone has to do is say "terrorist" and point the finger, and you could be disappeared. If you support this, you hate America. If you are in Congress and voted for this, you hate America and work to change it into corporate/military oligarchy. Here's my question though: why?

I don't see how a corporation gets rich from this in the short term. It's true that prison is a big for-profit business now, but why this? It is so egregious! In my now paranoid state, I think it is a reaction to Occupy Wall Street. I think this is the anti-dissent clause of the Defense Reauthorization Act. People who criticize the corporate takeover of our government will be considered economic terrorists and just simply grabbed up by the police, or some agency having to do with homeland security.

Now, do you remember how Obama said he would veto this? (In truth, he said he would "oppose" it.) Well, he has now given it the nod. This is not what I expected when I voted for "change" in 2008. But why would Obama want this? He loves Wall Street. They were and still are his number one donors. And if you buy into my paranoid assessment, then this part of the Act is the Wall Street protection clause.

Obama defenders, including WH press secretaries, say that "this legislation doesn't put into legislation things that the President couldn't already do." Well I say "that's the fucking problem!" This NORMALIZES HORRIBLE BEHAVIOR BY THE GOVERNMENT! Obama was supposed to, was in fact elected to reverse the awful direction of the Bush White House. Instead he's taken things further in the horrible direction.

Obama has normalized the wiretapping and indefinite detention of American Citizens. Worse, he has assassinated American Citizens without trial. This is now NORMAL behavior for an American President. Now, how bad do you think it could get with a President Gingritch exercising these same executive powers?

Obama in 2012?
No, no no...the above rant tells you how horrible the choice is in 2012. The absolute clownish abomination that is the Republican field, or the so-called Democrat Obama who is allowing huge portions of the Bill of Rights to be shredded, and left for naught. The laughably called progressive Obama who has Goldman Sachs bitch Tim Geithner as our Treasury Secretary, and Jeff Immelt (GE CEO) as his top financial advisor. To put it in brief, we can elect a Republican who will openly serve the corporate oligarchs, and make us pay for it, or a Democrat who will barely hide the fact that he serves the corporate oligarchy and is making us pay for it.

So what do you do? Well,  here's where we come full-circle to Ron Paul. Now, I'm not over the edge yet. I am not ready to vote for a Republican. But Paul seems to be the most principled candidate in the election. Still, he's crazy. He want's to get rid of five cabinet departments. He wants to cut a trillion dollars from the budget. This would cripple the nation. It would be a disaster.

But, could he do it? The cabinet departments...maybe. After all, he would be the executive. But there would be pressure to keep them. And cutting a trillion? That's up to Congress, and he would probably not get all of his cuts.

The upside? He'd end the wars. He'd cut defense. Again, there would be tremendous pressure from the oligarchs and the Pentagon, but he'd probably be able to use public sentiment to end the war in Afghanistan. That's a huge win. Also, he'd work to restore civil liberties. That's another HUGE win, and way more than Obama has done. What is clear at this point is that Ron Paul is NOT for the oligarchy. He's not a Wall Street bitch, like the majority of BOTH parties, and like EVERY other candidate for president, including Obama.

Maybe he's just fooling us, like Obama did in 2008. But is it worth a shot? Again, I'm not there yet, but I'm considering it. I see the Paul acolytes on the freeway overpasses, waving their signs. I used to roll my eyes and snicker, but now I wonder.

What would Paul do when a Supreme Court justice needs to be replaced? That would be a key question. My gut tells me that could be a disaster. Obama did a decent job...twice (maybe - I'm still not sure about Kagen). But do we make the choice based on a potential Supreme Court nomination? While the Constitution burns and the President fiddles?

Uhg. What a choice. Happy Holidays.

To the Casino, With Our Money!

So, the news is full of the foibles and follies of the drunken clown-car that is the Republican candidates to face President Obama in 2012. Bachman's a lunatic, Perry's as dumb as a stump, Cain may be dumber and Romney - the eventual candidate - is loathed by the base. So much drama, so much distraction.

Meanwhile, in Gotham City, Bank of America (playing the role of the evil mastermind) moved their depositor's accounts to the part of their bank that gambles in derivatives. Holy horse shit, Batman! This means a crime is happening!

Yes, a crime, and one that should be punished. And, the cops were on the beat. Part of our government, the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) swooped in and said "stop!" They realized that this move by B of A put US taxpayers in a terrible position. Then, their good works were foiled by the evil villain's best friend - the rest of the US government.

The Fed told the FDIC to stand down. Told them to shut up, and let B of A move their depositor's money to the risky, casino side of their banking operations. 

What does this mean? It means that if you are a B of A customer, YOUR money is now being used to gamble in the derivatives market. What this means for B of A is that they have lots more money to gamble with, and to cover losses with. You see, they get to gamble way, way more than they have on deposit. This is also part of the reason why banks are not loaning out all that money they got from the Fed in the first place - our money - which was what they were supposed to do. Loaning money to you at usurious rates still pays less than if they score gambling on derivatives. In this way, your money is used as leverage for huge bets that pay huge bonuses for the gamblers.

Now, if they don't score while gambling, well, they get to go to the government's Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation and say "shit - we lost all of those depositor's money." Then, the FDIC, backed up by OUR TAX DOLLARS, replaces the lost money - depositor's money. Then, B of A has leverage again and goes right back to the casino.

How fucking awesome would it be, if you could go to your local B of A branch and pull out other people's money? Wait, wait...then, go to the casino (I know of three near where I live) and gamble like a  high roller? If you win, you keep all the winnings. But if you lose, go to the government and have them cover your losses, then gamble again. How fucking awesome? Or, how fucking stupid?

No, no, no...this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Even if B of A employees are really, really good gamblers in the derivatives market, they are going to lose sometimes. The derivatives market is largely unregulated, and it's huge - easily in the tens of trillions of dollars. Being off by just a percent of trillions could wipe out billions of depositors' money. 

So, check this: B of A, who pays you virtually NO INTEREST on your savings, is going to use YOUR MONEY to profit mightily in the short term, and then use YOUR TAX DOLLARS to cover their losses when they LOSE ALL OF YOUR MONEY. Wow. 

But I'm sure Tim Geithner is on this. (Where is my snark font?)

The Tipping Point?

We are coming to a tipping point in America. We are coming to the time, as we have before, where one national meme gives way to another. The meme that we have been following since 1981 is "what is good for corporate America is good for us all." The sub-meme is "government is a hinderance to corporate America, and therefore bad for Americans."

We, the unwashed masses, are waking up to some realities.

• Reality #1: There is no corporate "America," just multinational corporations that have headquarters in America.
• Reality #2: The distribution of money in our economy has become unjust.
• Reality #3: Government itself isn't necessarily bad, but our elected leaders are mostly corrupt.
• Reality #4: Because of this corruption, we don't have a political spectrum representing the people, just government by and for narrow corporate interests.

Reality #1

Corporations are not evil, nor are they good. They are amoral entities that exist to help the corporation's bottom line. They do not sit in mahogany-paneled rooms and plot to destroy America. But if, say, environmental regulations  get in the way of profits, then they will fight those regulations - especially if fighting is cheaper than compliance. Likewise, they do not sit in a circle asking how they can benefit the nation - that is not their responsibility. Their fiduciary duty is to their shareholders, and to the company's bottom line.

Unfortunately, things that are good for a corporation's bottom line that are bad for us are polluting, paying less (or in many cases NO) taxes, trimming their work force, outsourcing American jobs, and avoiding compliance with health, safety and labor regulations. All of these things impoverish or endanger American citizens, and lower our quality of life. But I would again point out that this does not make corporations evil - it is what they do. It is the role of government to regulate the behavior of corporations, so they don't shit all over the commons, and the citizens of America. 

And people see this now. It is common knowledge, for instance, that in 2010 GE paid NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX, and in fact, got a rebait. Joe lunchpail, who paid his taxes in 2010 gave part of that to GE. Same for some banks, same for big oil. And yet, Democrats rush to defend Wall Street's tax shelters. BP not only fouled the gulf, but killed 12 people in that infamous rig explosion. Yet you had a Republican Congressman apologizing to them for the harsh words that some in DC were using at them. Our government is supposed to protect the average guy from the powerful's abuse. But that is not happening, so corporations continue to suck all the nation's money right up to the top, which brings us to...

Reality #2

We have the worst inequity of income distribution since they have been keeping track. Our disparity between rich and poor puts us on par, according to recent economic studies, with Mexico and the Philippines. The top 400 richest people in American have more money than the bottom 50%. The bottom half is over 150 million people. The six Walmart heirs have more money than the bottom 30%! No, no...six people have more money than the poorest 100 million Americans. That is insane. Also, since the mid 1970s, the American middle class has barely held steady with inflation as far as income. That is, except the last five years. In that span, we have lost seven percent. We are getting crushed. Why are we getting crushed?...

Reality #3

Our government is the longest-lasting system of constitutional government in the world. Our framework works to, more of less, serve the people. We don't always like it, it's not always fair, but it has worked for about 230 years. 

Now, however, our government works to serve the top 2% almost to the exclusion of all else. Those that govern haven't completed the transformation, but they are working hard to get rid of entitlements (that we are, by the way, entitled to), and to shape the tax structure to insure a permanent upper/ruling class in the United States. Shit like this has gone on since the founding - like Hamilton and Washington and their buddies swindling Revolutionary War vets out of their bonds. But it feels like this is a tipping point. 

American has been raided. Corporate raiders have cleaned the safes and cupboards, and now they're shorting the United States. The credit downgrade was just the first move. Once Social Security is scooped up into bags marked "swag," and state education budgets are transferred to a few corporations, and all the prisons privatized, we will cease to educate ourselves, have no cushion for our elderly and handicapped, and fall into third world status. We are getting crushed, squeezed as it were, because the ruling elite want to suck the last juice out of us before moving on, like fat locusts. And why is this happening?

Because our government leaders are in the employ of these locusts. Their campaign money, and their future wealth comes from the corporate oligarchy. This is true for their staffers, and for cabinet officials, and for generals and colonels in the military. Serve the master, get your reward. Not just in campaign funds (bribes), but in future jobs, speech fees and consulting fees. And, this is legal. But it is wholly and utterly corrupt. Our elected leaders are, by and large, whores who we pay six figure salaries, get great benefits and pensions, but only blow the oligarchs. We are left with empty pockets holding our dicks. 

So, does anyone represent us?

Reality #4

Basically, no. If you are lucky enough to have Bernie Sanders as a Senator, you have maybe the last principled senator in America. Now, some conservatives do go to bat for their voters on social issues, and swing hard. And a few so-called liberals do the same. But they both cater first and foremost to the top 2%. Republicans do this openly, having claimed the mantle of "pro-business" for a long time they have no trouble voting to erase regulations that save children's lives or keep the nation from becoming a toxic waste dump. Democrats, however, are having a much harder time doing this. As the final looting of America begins, the votes they must take are more egregious, and harder to defend. 

So, you get Senators like Patty Murray, who has liberal cred for voting against Bush on the Iraq War, put in place to shepherd the corporate agenda through the Super Committee. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who rail against Wall Street, and yet wink and nod as their bill gets watered down, especially where the horribly dangerous derivatives gambling is concerned. And, oh my god, President Obama, who often executes his office to the RIGHT of how Bush Jr. did - with Democrats like this, who needs Republicans? 

Seriously though, as voters who care about our own economic plight, we have NO CHOICES to make between Democrats and Republicans. We don't have a "left" and a "right" any more. We have a far, far right corporatist party, and a right wing corporatist party. The right wing corporatist party dallies on a few social issues, but does not waver from ANY legislation that protects the bonus of a CEO.

So, where does that leave the 98% of American voters? Well, if you are super right wing, you can go with either party, as they will speak to your economic and foreign policy mythology, or vote Republican and have them cater to your draconian, Old Testement-based social agenda. If, however, you are an American who does not want to be economically fucked hard, while bent over the meat-counter of corporate America, you have no choice. The question really becomes: do I bother getting off the couch. Many potential Democratic voters in 2010 answered "no."

Soon, it will be 2012, and the answer will be "hell no!" The Democratic Party, and its de-facto leader President Obama have not done the job for the 98%. Sure, he has scolded us, and told us we are unreasonable, and backed down from just about EVERY fight from the so-called opposition, but some how...that's just not enough. We now see that losing those fights is his job. He is supposed to lose, so that the corporate oligarchy wins. We see this, and have lost hope. We see this, and know that the Democratic party is a dead end. The 98%, economically, have no representation in our national government (with very few exceptions).

The next burst of energy from the average working American will come as a protest, and as organized action to change the rules. Perhaps a Constitutional amendment to change how campaigns are financed. Perhaps as a third party, one that does damage to both of our established parties. Perhaps all of the above. But it's coming soon. 

Let's hope so, anyway.

Credit Where Credit is Due

My last post was a blasting of the Jobs speech by President Obama. Of my many concerns, my most damning one was over the math. When he proposed paying for it by letting the "Super Congress" find the money, that meant that it would be paid for by cuts that would affect all of us, because you know that "Stupor Congress" will not raise a nickel in new revenue. And with over half of the bill in the form of tax cuts, that would mean we would ultimately pay for another 300 billion in tax cuts for big business.

Then, this last Monday, the President changed his tune. Usually, this means he is weakening his position in order to agree full-throatedly with Republicans. But, credit where credit is due, he stood strong. In fact, he turned up the heat. He insisted that the undertaxed rich could pony up a few more coppers each to pay for this legislation.

I like it.

I like that he had specifics. He proposed taxing hedge fund managers like normal people. He proposed limiting deductions on families making over a quarter million a year. He proposed canceling taxpayer  subsidies for the large uber-profitable oil companies. These are things that a liberal president should be for.

They will also make Republicans turn green.

But that is good politics. Now, Fox news and the Republican talking-point machine have made powerful imprints on the national psyche. But their imprint does not poll well, and will be very hard for most Republicans to defend over and over and over. If the Dems run ads in all the Republican districts that show a Wall Street hedge fund villain lighting a cigar with a fan of hundreds, and then split the screen with that district's closed factory or food bank with empty shelves - damn, that will be pressure. Republicans are already having awful times at their town meetings, with people asking them about jobs, and telling them to tax the rich. And there is, unfortunately, no liberal equivalent of the Tea Party. These are their constituents who are pissed about being poor and jobless while the money flows upward.

And it heartens the base. When the President says "pass this bill, right away," and goes after a Republican party that openly despises the average working American, we feel glad that someone with power is finally fighting for us. If he keeps at it, he will change the message away from "deficits" and "spending" to "jobs." And "jobs" will become synonymous with the kind of government stimulus that he is proposing. The idea, that Obama has endorsed at times, that cutting taxes and spending is the way to economic recovery will give way to the idea that the government needs to take action to pull its people out of the economic morass.

Look, I still strongly disagree with the proposed bill. Over half tax cuts will not get it done. The trade agreements will not result in job one, and are largely tax shelters for the fortune 500. But if hedge fund managers pay for it, then I'll take it, along with the 200 billion in infrastructure and teachers hired. Unlike the claims of the Obama cultists, liberals like me who criticize the President don't want the perfect over the good. We just want some of the good.

Here's what I will watch for - as one who has been disappointed over and over again by this White House. I will watch for a back-track. I will listen carefully for a White House spokesperson to come out and say that "what the President meant was that maybe hedge fund managers could chip in a little, but that ultimately the Super Congress will decide..." or something like that. That means here we go again. I will also watch and see if the President quickly agrees to sign the tax cut parts of this bill now, and say he will fight for the other parts going forward. If that happens, we've been fucked. And I say we've been fucked because this President just doesn't fight (unless it's to kill a progressive proposal), and this was all a sham to slip through another 300 billion in tax cuts for big business.

I would rather he got none of this bill, than just the Republican-approved parts. If he uses the bill as a blunt instrument, it may not even save his presidency, but it could flip a lot of seats in the House. There are over 60 Republicans in districts that voted for Obama in 2008. These are not massively red districts, and could go blue with a strong, populist message centered around jobs, and how the Republicans have done nothing to create them, after running on jobs in 2010. I'd rather, in this case, to have the good be the enemy of the lame.

I want a fight. I want my President to fight. He's sounding like he finally wants to fight the opposition, and I like the sound. "No tax cuts of ANY KIND without stimulus!" should be the rallying cry. If the Republicans kill it, then beat them senseless for a year with it, and watch them lose. In reality, beat them senseless for a couple of months, and watch them start to flip. Watch as the pressure mounts at those town halls, on the forums, and maybe even on cable news. Watch those fuckers fold when someone finally hits them in the face.

I want good policy, and I think the President's proposal is luke-warm policy, at best, but has good parts. But I am partisan, and I want good politics too. As a liberal, I want a strong liberal counter-punch to conservative devastation to the nation. Fighting on jobs is great politics - IF the Dems, led by Obama, stay strong. Jobs is the issue that Americans care most about, and the Republicans are on the wrong side of the issue.

Stay strong!


****Late update to this post****
The Huffington Post has an article that says, uhg, that says the President will sign what the Republicans agree with, and fight for the rest after. God dammit.

The Jobs Speech

So, last Thursday, the President made his vaunted jobs speech. You know, the one he asked permission from the Republicans for? The one he was told "no," and then had to reschedule?

So, how did it go?

Well, let me back up a little, and start from the beginning. The start of the process was bungled about as bad as it could have been.

He tried to "bigfoot" the Republicans, as Cenk Uygur put it, by having the speech in the well of Congress on the same night as the comical Republican debate - one of about 3,000 debates they are having BEFORE the actual primary season. He has to, by law, get permission from Congress to address a joint session of Congress, so he asked. Now, NO PRESIDENT has EVER been refused. What do you thing this Congress did to our first black president? Of course, they refused. And the manner in which they did it? Well, Thomm Hartman said, on his radio show, that they might as well have put the word "boy" at the end of the reply. No, instead they let him have his speech on the same night as the opening of the NFL season. Only Green Bay against the Saints. This guarantees that three and a half people would watch the President's speech live. (In fairness, the speech was before the game, and probably seventeen and a half people watched it - I listened to it on the radio while running errands.)

So, if you are the President who is touted by his supporters as a political genius, a "chess-master" whose political machinations are far above the comprehension of us mere checkers players, don't you anticipate the refusal by the Republicans? And if you did, was your brilliant strategy to bow your head, and say "yes sir, Thursday will be fine sir"? Again, the Republican response was UNPRECEDENTED! A president has NEVER been refused an address to a joint session of Congress. But apparently this WAS the strategy - for the President to look reasonable, and for the Republicans to look unreasonable.

Dude, you look weak. You look like Oliver Twist asking for a little more gruel, and being slapped by a fat, Victorian white guy.  Here's what you should have done:

You should have expected the refusal, and said "no problem, I have another place to make the speech." Then, as you should have pre-arranged, fly Air Force One to John Boner's district, and make a speech in front of a closed factory. You start the speech with: "Can you believe those sons' o' bitches...debating how to give more tax breaks to the rich while you have no jobs! I want to create jobs, and they won't even let me speak..." you get the idea. This puts Boehner in a horrible vice, squeezing him between the tea baggers and his constituents, and changes the conversation from cutting spending to jobs. It makes Congress the enemy of the President, who is fighting for the people.

Ah, well...to dream.

Still, his speech had some marginally good points. I liked how he kept saying "pass this bill, right away." It is a rhetorical device that this president hasn't used. It spoke to the urgency of the jobs situation. His whole tone was a little louder, a little faster and a little more urgent. These are key things he needed to do...about two years ago.

Substantively, his speech contained a few things that can possibly help the jobs situation. He called for infrastructure spending, around 200 billion dollars worth. This is great. Construction workers, teachers and manufacturers of building and energy products will do well with this. He called for a one-year extension of unemployment benefits. This is not only humane, and "liberal," but a boon to the economy as well, as ALL of this spending will go to the consumer economy. He also said that he would not sacrifice collective bargaining to get this.

Pardon me if I don't fire the gun in the air, release the balloons and high-five my neighbors.

Here's the main things that I heard from this speech. And I am admittedly a massive Obama skeptic at this point, but I heard three main things: 1) "Republicans and Democrats working together" and "this was a Republican idea," 2) "tax cuts," and 3) "everything will be paid for," which means that massive cutting of services will follow. I also heard the nail in the reelection coffin: "we must reform Medicare."

Let me run these down. First, Mr. President, stop agreeing with your opposition. You are running to become the DEMOCRATIC President in 2012. Constantly agreeing with, and adopting Republican policies is terrible for all of us. First, they are generally bad policy. The bottom 98% of us suffer when policies designed to benefit the top 2% are supported by BOTH sides of our political spectrum. Second, it is horrible politics. We Americans don't care if you are reasonable and bipartisan. When it is your only move, you look weak, and we hate that in a President - just ask Jimmy Carter. And by the way, has it helped? Do the Republicans work with you? NO! They just yell at you even louder, and then blame you when their horrible policies fuck us all. Finally, it shifts the political spectrum further to the right. No matter what you do, they call you the extreme left. When you adopt right wing policies, those become the positions of the liberal left to the beltway media. Agreeing with Republicans makes Democrats' jobs that much harder.

It's not that you never compromise, that would be crazy. And Republicans are crazy, they never compromise. They drag you further to the right, and we have to suffer that trip with you. No, you fight for a Democratic position. You make our case, loud and often, which puts pressure on THEM to move LEFT! That way, the compromise is actually somewhere in the middle. I mean, Jesus Christ man, you are supposed to be a Democratic president. MAKE THE DEMOCRATIC CASE!

The next point is the tax cuts. If you do the math, over half of this proposal is tax cuts. For fuck's sake, our taxes are at historic lows! If tax cuts were a panacea for economic woes, we'd have the greatest economy in history right now. But we don't, we have one of the WORST economies in our history. And big business, the S&P 500, is sitting on TWO TRILLION dollars in cash right now. Really?! You want to reduce the payroll tax for them? What the fuck!?!

Look, the original stimulus package was over a third tax cuts. Many economists argue that that is one reason why it fell short - not enough spending. We don't need tax cuts. Our economy doesn't need tax cuts. Only the wealthiest Americans want them. And when you pay for them by having the disgusting "Super Congress" cut spending later, they come out of our pockets. Services that benefit Americans will disappear so that the money can flow to the top. In the middle of the worst jobs crisis since the Great Depression, and the kick-off of your reelection campaign, more than half of your proposal is to transfer yet MORE money to the top 2%. Man, you must be the stupidest politician, or you must hate us. Good luck getting our votes with that strategy.

Which leads to a repeated point here - when he said, near the beginning of his speech, that "everything will be paid for." He said that it will be up to the Super Congress committee to find an extra half-trillion to pay for this jobs bill. That means that this bill is NOT STIMULUS. It is NOT a jolt to the economy, because it will kill jobs on the back end as services are cut. So, for 200 billion in infrastructure spending, we cut an additional half-trillion in overall spending. Well guess what? That half-trillion is spending in the economy. This plan ends up shorting us on close to 300 billion in spending that would create - wait for it - JOBS!!! Fuck! And look, as I have said many times, I am a crank who works two jobs. I don't have time to research this. And yet I can figure out that this plan actually puts us on the hook for another 300 billion of wealth transfer to the top 2%. That is the net figure in this transaction the way the President has proposed it. This is terrible, terrible, terrible.

And the cherry on top of this turd sundae - the "reform" of Medicare. Now, to be fair, Medicare is not like Social Security. Medicare is in trouble, and does not have SS's HUGE surplus. (Whenever you hear that SS is in trouble, know that that argument is total bullshit.) Medicare does face insolvency. And, there are some reforms that could really help. But the devil is in the details. For instance, if you get rid of the Medicare debacle that Bush put in place, you will save billions that now are skimmed off the top to enrich corporations.

Also, if the Affordable Care Act had actually tried to be affordable, like with a public option, and drug reimportation, Medicare would largely be out of the woods. Medicare is in so much trouble because medical costs have NO CONTROL! And the derisively named "Obamacare" does much too little to control them. Reforms along these lines would be wise and welcome.

But if the President's proposal is to raise the eligibility age, then he has once again sided with the wealthiest CEOs, and is content to watch you suffer and die so that the top 2% doesn't have to part with a nickel extra to help the nation that has been so good to them. And believe me, this will not be lost on the seniors, or those approaching seniorhood (like me). We will turn on this president at the polls. Even talking about Medicare reforms in an election year is crazy, unless you can make it crystal clear how every American's lives will be better for these reforms.

So, bottom line? This speech was largely a disaster. It showed urgency, and some amusing repetitions of the phrase "right away," but was more of a weak president saying how much he is in favor of the ideas of his political opponents. And although the tone was urgent, which could put pressure on Republicans if he framed it better, instead had a pleading quality. It was as if he was saying "cum oooooon, guys...help me with jooooooooooobbbs. Please? Pretty please? I'll let you ride my bike!" And, the math works out horribly for us, and fantastically for the top 2%. Whose surprised?

Nobody whose been paying attention, that's who.

Shorting the US of A, Part 3 - Why We Suck!

This is a continuation of a rant from before, if you haven't suffered through that yet, check it out here. Or, start at the beginning here.

So, after S&P downgraded US debt, the vaunted "markets" tanked. In fact, they had been tanking all week. They knew it was coming. But they really tanked the following Monday. Was it because S&P is so awesome, and can bring down world economies with just one report?

No, it is because our economy sucks, and because those in power have no inclination or incentive to fix it. Take this fact into account: Corporations in America are sitting on TWO TRILLION DOLLARS in cash. That's right...cash. Now, we could be taxing them, and paying down the debt, but as I said in the last post, this seems to be politically impossible right now. But you have to consider the fact that sitting on cash doesn't make you much money. If they thought they could make profit by investing the cash, even in their own stock, they would do it. They see America as a dry well.

They are not investing this cash because not enough Americans have money. With real unemployment at near 20%, not enough people have the money for their products. Without jobs, people can't buy their shit! And this is not seen by corporations as a short-term problem, or they would invest at least some of the cash. Nope, they see American as a long-term project, one that they have little interest in at the moment, if at all.

Since 2007, we have lost nearly SEVEN TRILLION dollars in home values! These are the homes that we were using as ATMs not too long ago. Those ATMs are shut down. Since our economy is based on consumer spending, at least 60% of it, anyway, we miss that equity dearly. Several economists are saying that the housing market is already in a "double-dip" recession, and it is leading the way, like last time. And if that's not bad enough, about a quarter of the nation's homes (I've heard as much as a third) are under water. That means they are worth less than what is owed on them. Unless there is real help from the government, hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose these homes, many just walking away from them. This also means that the banks, which have these loans on their current balance sheets as "okey-dokey," are dangerously undercapitalized (but still gambling in derivatives markets). This is a disaster that we are only part of the way through.

Finally, we are tapped out on just about every level. We have stretched the limit of our credit. We have lost ground in manufacturing - we don't make shit anymore, which means we can't export shit. And we are at the limit of our productivity. Since 1980, the average American man works an additional 100 hours per year. The average American woman - 200 hours. We work extremely hard as a people, and we can't work much harder. And since 1980 our earning power has stagnated, as wages have barely kept pace with inflation. And, since energy and food are not counted (comically, and sadly) in that index, we have lost ground tremendously. Especially in the last 10 years.  Add in the crushing weight of medical costs, especially when compared to rival economies, and we are tapped. There are just not any extra dollars that can be squeezed out of working families any more.

As an economy - right now, and for the foreseeable future - we suck! We have a corrupted governmental system, an unbalanced economy run by corporate oligarchs, and a populace that is stretched to its limits. The private cash needed to fuel a consumer economy is largely gone from the system.

And this is why there is now a push to "reform" so many government programs. Government programs, like Social Security, Medicare and education are where there are still large pools of cash. So, when this latest deal over the debt ceiling had proposals that cut programs for the people, and also cut corporate taxes...well, that is a straight-up transfer of wealth from us to the top. And that is what's coming in the Grand Bargain that the Super Congress will bring you in November. It is the final raiding of the cupboards. The thieves have all your nice shit in their sacks already, now they are taking the canned food and six-packs as they leave through the back door.

This is why some people are shorting the USA. We are in bad shape, and it doesn't look like we are getting better soon. So why would anyone want to invest in treasuries here?

Our best friend right now is Europe and the rest of the world. Asia, right now, is the future of growth and stability. But their rapid growth, and mitigating factors like huge populations in dire poverty, make them currently less stable than the USA. And Europe is as fucked as we are in how corrupt their banking system is. The business with Greece, as an example, is a textbook case in greed, corruption and stupidity. (By the way, US banks, namely Goldman Sachs, were involved in the Greek financial catastrophe too!) Just yesterday France and Germany met to discuss how they were going to, and even if they were able to, prop up Ireland, Portugal, possibly Spain and parts of Italy too. And the Greek intervention of a couple of weeks ago may just forestall what many consider the inevitable - the bankruptcy of Greece. This could start a chain of European dominos that crash through Asia and the US too.

Get ready for a rough decade. It is already being called the "lost decade," similar to what Japan has faced since the late 1990s. Too bad we didn't elect a Democratic president, one who would fight for the working people and...

...oh yeah...never mind.

Shorting the US of A Part Two - Was S&P Correct?

(This is part two of an extended rant on the economic crisis sparked by those fuck-heads at S&P. For part one, click HERE)

As to the question of S&P...fuck no. Nothing about them is correct. But they do have some assertions that are hard to argue in the main stream media, at least the way it is framed. Their main assertion is that the United States has dysfunctional governance at its core, and therefore cannot be totally counted upon to pay its debts. I think this is bullshit, but it is hard to argue the incompetence in government, or the sheer lunacy.

The real problem is that our government is bought, lock, stock and barrel by the same corporate oligarchs that pay S&P to give their crap AAA ratings. Our government is made up of a conservative party that does whatever the corporations want, and an even worse party called the Republicans. Our government IS dysfunctional in that it no longer serves the needs of the mainstream.

Many will argue that that has been the case for time immemorial. And I won't argue with them. But I think that we are at a tipping point time where something has to give. National anger will well up soon, and already has in the form of the Tea Party. The problem is, the Tea Party is doing EXACTLY what will benefit the oligarchs. They are lunatics that are driven by racism, xenophobia and in some cases religious extremism. I see the Tea Party as the expression of white, working/middle class conservatives who feel the slipping standard of living juxtaposed with the pressure of changing demographics. The broader national culture has been changing, as has the economy. They don't like it, and they blame liberals - because Rush and Beck tell them to.

They demand a kind of nationalist purity, one based on a mythical time when you paid for everything in America with gold coin, and nobody needed help from the government. Their intransigence during this debt ceiling debate was seemingly crazy. But I thought different, I thought it was awesome.

Not awesome as in good, awesome as awe inspiring.

These crazy fuckers are a minority. The Tea Party is a minority in the Republican party, and a much smaller minority in the Congress. But they are running roughshod over the lot of them, and leaving everyone else looking weak and foolish. John Boehner can't control them, and McConnell and DeMint will do anything to curry their favor. And even worse, the Democrats are terrified of them.

Why? Why are the DEMOCRATIC members of the House, Senate and White House afraid of these lunatics. They SHOULD be a dream come true. Their radical utterances should be in every Democrat's campaign commercials. But they can't do that now...

...because their President has adopted TOO MANY OF THEIR FUCKING TALKING POINTS!

The President's constant lurching to the right has created a conventional wisdom in the media. It goes as follows: The Tea Party is on the right, Obama is on the left, and John "Boner" and John McCain are the moderates. Oh, and the Progressive Caucus, they are the radical fringe.

The problem with this is that about 80% of Americans, if polled issue by issue on the economy want what the Progressive Caucus wants. The mainstream media narrative is way outside the mainstream American reality. Americans need jobs, health care, and a little security in their old age. But the most immediate need is jobs. No legislation since the bailout packages in 2008/09 have addressed this problem.

So...S&P, fuck-heads that they are, were correct when they said we had dysfunctional government. Not for the reason they said, but it is dysfunctional to the core. The same corporate oligarchs who built and nurtured the Frankenstein monster Tea Party, now struggle to control their monster's rampage through a broken body politic.

S&P also said that revenue was needed. This is why treasuries are still so stable, even after the downgrade, because our taxes are so low! There is plenty of room, historically, to raise them. The tax cuts that Bush put through added over a TRILLION dollars to the debt. But the Republicans are stuck with a pledge to never raise taxes, and the Democrats are too afraid to push an issue that 80 fucking percent of the American public agrees with - raise taxes on the rich.

So...S&P was right about dysfunction, and may have even been correct in downgrading the US debt. I really don't know. We are not the country we used to be, and the evidence becomes clearer every day how that is true. Having said that, S&P was not the main reason for the stock market explosion last week. Why did it blow up? See part three!

Shorting the US of A Part One- S&P's Big Middle Finger

So, it has hit the fan, finally. This last weekend, the Standard and Poores rating agency downgraded the US Treasury bills and bonds from AAA to AA+. They say they didn't like the way Congress dealt with the debt ceiling debate we had most recently. They say they may downgrade further if we don't cut more spending, and soon.

Who are Standard and Poores? They are a credit rating agency. They, along with Moody's and Fitch rate different kinds of debt securities for investors. Bonds, stocks and varied financial instruments are given a grade by these agencies to let investors know how risky they are. The lower the grade, the higher the risk, and therefore - the higher the rate of return. The risk is that the security may fail altogether, and you get no return. Since there have been ratings, US securities have been AAA: the safest investment in the world.

And why did they, S&P, freak out and downgrade the good 'ol USA? Is this kind of government wrangling and fussing over fiscal matters a new thing? No. Hell no! Any student of US history knows that this argument over the full faith and credit has been going on since the founding of the country. One of the big fights in Washington's cabinet was over paying the Revolutionary War bonds.

Investors loaned the rebellious Continental Congress money to fight the British. Many of those investors were actual Americans - farmers who accepted bonds for supplies, and soldiers who accepted bonds in lieu of pay. Jefferson argued that it was the Continental Congress that issued the bonds, not the new United States under its new constitution. Therefore, the United States should not have to pay those bonds, at least not at full face value. Jefferson wanted to start with a clean slate. Hamilton argued that the US should take on the full measure of the debt. Pay every penny on the dollar, so that investors would continue to loan the new government money.

You can easily make the argument that Hamilton was right, and wish that we had some Hamiltons here today. But Jefferson knew what many text books leave out. He knew that speculators had purchased many of these bonds from poor farmers for pennies on the dollar. They said "the government will never pay, we're helping you out." Then they went to Washington and Hamilton and cried that "the government must pay, or nobody will ever trust the US again." It was a bailout for bond investors that Hamilton was arguing for, as much as the US's credit rating. Just like we recently bailed out the good friends of Standard and Poores. S&P also argues for the cutting of entitlements, which means defaulting on the bonds held by the hard-working folks of America, which is like those Revolutionary farmers who got screwed.

Standard and Poores...man, fuck those guys. The US has never, NEVER defaulted on its bonds. But they butted themselves into the argument, saying before the debt deadline of August 2nd that they wanted to see four trillion in cuts, or they might lower the bond rating. That four trillion in cuts caused some consternation in Congress should not have been news. But as they lowered the boom yet again on our economy, they said that our government was dysfunctional, and that's why (along with coming up with only 2.something trillion in cuts) they were pissed.

But that's bullshit. The horrible "Super Congress" is primed to cut at least two trillion dollars further, with automatic triggers if the committee doesn't do it itself. And, only needing one conservative Democrat to cave to Wall Street's mandates, it is almost certain that taxes will remain where they are - that it will be all, or almost all cuts and not new revenue. S&P is going to get what it says it wants.

But Fuck S&P! These Wall Street lackeys are sticking it to America. They are harming 300,000,000 of us to enrich a few bankers. Yes, bankers, who are the people that S&P works for.

It used to be that the rating agencies, like S&P, worked for investors. They were paid by fees attached to investments that you purchased, bonds, stocks or the like. Then, in the 1990s when banks were deregulated, it was decided that the investment banks, those who put the stock and bond deals together, would pay the rating agencies. So what happened then is that when S&P gave a corporate bond, or an initial public offering a low grade, the bankers would say "well, I'll go to Moody's then." The message is clear: if you want your money, give my financial products, no matter how shitty, a high grade.

This is why the geniuses at S&P gave AAA grades to the absolute pieces of shit, the mortgage derivatives, that brought down the economy and so many pension funds in 2008. They knew they were crap - hell, their banker buddies were betting against them in the derivatives market. But they kept their rating up until the day of the crash. So fuck S&P and its pronouncement about US debt - they are nothing more than an advertising agency for investment banks and their shaky products. Their grade should be given no more credence than any other utterance by someone who is always wrong.

And they have been sued, these rating agencies, for giving high grades to bad investments. The investor plaintiffs have proven in court that they misrepresented the risk because they were paid by those who sold the risk. And the courts have said: not guilty! The courts did not rule on their misrepresentation, they ruled that S&P and the others enjoyed freedom of speech under the First Amendment. So, that was their defense - we can say any crazy shit we want, and take money for it.

So these fucking rating agencies have done nothing but sell you but bullshit for over a decade. S&P is not an objective arbiter of risk, and hasn't been one for a long time, and therefore should have zero credibility. They are ad men (and women) for the criminal banksters that have already robbed us massively in 2008. They should be ignored, and then investigated by the Justice Department for their role in the 2008 swindle. Instead, they are allowed to send the markets into a panic, and butt their noses into American politics with no consequence.

So why are they sticking this middle finger up so high to the nation that has treated them so well? My guess is two-fold. One, they will further enrich their banker overlords. We will soon be paying higher interest rates on any variable mortgages left, and on all consumer debt. The nation will be paying higher interest too, and banks will be getting a piece of this. Also, banks have ensnared hundreds of cities, counties and states in "swaps," which are convoluted loans full of traps and triggers. The interest rates will skyrocket on these, further impoverishing the states and municipalities of America. Two, this is also a great way to help Mitt Romney become our next president, insuring more cuts and lower taxes. This will finish the looting of the United States.

Is it possible that S&P sees financial disaster on the horizon, and wants to make a realistic appraisal of the United State's economic position in the world? Actually, yes! It is possible, and in part three of this rant I will explain just how bad off we are. But I seriously doubt this is the case for S&P. They are skanky Wall Street whores that blow corporate debt for a percentage. When they tell us we are less credit worthy, they do it with herpes sores around their lying mouths, the herpes born from the coitus of corrupted financial institutions.

So, S&P can swivel on that middle finger. They can turn 360s until their 'roids are ragin'. Fuck Standard and Poores, like the dirty whores that they are. And fuck you, Tim Geithner, for advising our President to play footsie with these dirty, diseased Wall Street whores.

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.