Two Years is Not Permanent

Got an email from the government today saying that I judged the President too harshly. Out of fairness and gratitude, since I am one of millions of recipients of continued unemployment benefits thanks to his efforts, I share with you what the President has to say for himself, most importantly that the heinous compromise to extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent is not permanent, that we have two more years to abolish them.

Divide and Capitulate

The fix is in. Lame duck season is open. Anybody (like me) who believed that fiscal conservatism would return with the end of the Bush Administration is crying in their beer. Not any fancy beer, either. Who can afford quality lager these days, when jobless rates are at historic highs and tax rates only benefit chuggers of champagne? No, I'm watering down my PBR with salty tears, shaking my head at the President's complete and utter capitulation to the forces of economic ruin, my own as well as the nation's.

I ended my job contract over a year ago and haven't worked a day since, being way over- or under-qualified for the jobs that are available. Now my benefits are set to run out at the end of the year unless tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent are extended.

What's truly sad is that job prospects will not be improved by this compromise; quite the opposite, in fact. Small business, the main engine of job growth, is being left out. While $70 million in tax credits is on the plate for the majority of citizens, $140 billion goes to the tiny minority of the wealthiest among us, none of whom will be inclined to do anything but squirrel those savings away. This will pump up the federal deficit beyond its already astronomical bulk and do nothing to improve our dismal economy. This isn't fiscal conservatism; it's fiscal madness. This is the kind of thing we saw in the Bush era, and now Obama is working with the opposition to keep it going. Meanwhile his own party lays blame and squabbles with each other, creating a new paradigm in US politics: divide and capitulate.

Lame duck season is open to all comers and those with the biggest guns are walking away with all the greatest gains. The way things are going, it might be the last time hunting is this good.

24 Days and Counting

This early effort at TRON getups is amusing and I'm so very grateful they went with something else (though some might question the aesthetic sensibility of frisbees with bike helmets). Our hero wants to play keyboard in Duran Duran, while Yori has this cyber-Pocahantas vibe going that might play well at the Renaissance Fair.

I used a website to tweak the image for my Facebook profile, but they call it Obama-izing the image. Obama-izing. That doesn't sound natural or right. And for such a brutal neologism, totally inaccurate as well. You can sanitize, patronize, and weaponize, but Obama-ize? Change your birthplace to Hawai'i and we can talk. Awful, vile word. The President should be ashamed.

End Corporate Personhood Now

By now you've heard about the US Supreme Court's decision to say "Yes, We Can!" to corporate campaign spending. As in, "Yes, we can spend as much as we want for our favorite candidates!" The premise is that curtailing corporation's ability to effectively pick and choose which candidates will be elected is a violation of their first amendment rights. Hey, corporations are people, too.

I wish I were kidding.

Here's a brief summary from Wikipedia concerning corporate personhood:

In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward Corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment in an 1886 Supreme Court Case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394.

Some critics of corporate personhood, such as author Thom Hartmann in his book "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," claim that this was an intentional misinterpretation of the case inserted into the Court record by reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis. Bancroft Davis had previously served as president of Newburgh and New York Railway Co.

A vile distortion of the rule of law has been perpetuated by this activist ruling. Starting with the Haitian tragedy, the news lately has been one horror after another. President Obama, who was elected in no small part thanks to corporate contributions, says his administration will fight back. I hope he is more effective than the farce we've seen with financial and healthcare reform, but I'm not holding my breath. I say this not to be cynical but pragmatic: my faith in the political process went out with hanging chads and when it comes to the idea of "by the people, for the people," I can recall William Henry Harrison in 1840, when he said

I believe and I say it is true Democratic feeling, that all the measures of the government are directed to the purpose of making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Amy Goodman at Democracy Now! covers the issue:

President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

I always thought you had to earn the Nobel Peace prize -is it awarded on the basis of hope now? With his current record, President Barack Obama will hope his way into ruling the world!

Obama himself declared in a Rose Garden statement: "I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments."

I'm concerned, as someone who desires peace and prosperity in ours and future times, that today's award is not only premature but goes to the wrong person. Why not award it to a leader who has accomplished something? Historic as Obama's successful campaign was, he has yet to bring substantial results let alone any kind of progress toward peace.

Then again, how seriously should we take a "peace" prize that was awarded to Yasir Arafat?

As we might expect, reactions across the spectrum are varied, with accolades coming strong from those who've received the award and blasts from all manner of pundits and politicos. Can't imagine Chicago is dancing in the streets.

Don't Watch This Drive

It comes as no surprise when we hear that President Obama keeps bad company. Shady realtors and a loudmouth preacher dogged his campaign. He recently spent five hours golfing with Robert Wolf, president of UBS Investment Bank, who, according to Amy Goodman, "agreed to pay the U.S. $780 million to settle civil and criminal charges related to helping people in the U.S. avoid taxes." Another too big to fail moment? I have to say, this doesn't exactly increase my faith in the current Prez that he is honoring his commitment to treat those who elected him (I voted for someone else) with honesty and transparency. So far he's done a lot to undermine any feeling that anyone but Big Biz (Pharma, Insurance, Banks, et al) deserves to trust him. Well, I guess those citizens who avoid paying taxes think he's pretty neat, too.

The real fallout? US Presidents can no longer tee off with impunity. This goes back to Obama's predecessor, who famously gave his opinion of war atrocities to reporters on the green followed by one of countless memorable quotes, "Now, watch this drive." If anything, President Obama has shown himself the wiser Commander-in-Chief by not holding any press conferences on the ninth hole.

Obamacare

We don't have a competitive healthcare system in the US. What we've got are insurance companies who can drop members with impunity, or deny applicants because they are or have been sick. The only competition is which company can deny coverage the fastest. Why change that?

What I don't get is these itchy, yelping folks at "town hell meetings" who want things to stay just the way they are, and are willing to believe no less than an ocean of hogwash to bolster their hysteria. Obviously these are the ones who represent our country's best interests, those who believe what they're told without reflection and have the loudest voices of dissent when our elected leaders attempt to engage the public.

Why worry about socialism, when we have mob rule?

President Barack Obama made some recent statements that go some way toward shaping the discussion. Good. He is still hedging his bets in laying out a clearly defined "road map" (to borrow a metaphor) for reform. I'm glad he is finally taking a stand against the ridiculous fabrications going around the talk show circuit, but it might be too little, too late.