It's my (Democratic) party and I'll cry if I want to

Frankly, this is just sad--I sometimes wonder if we expected too much after the 2008 landslide, but the more I see, the more I think we were just hoodwinked. We are talking 300,000 teaching jobs gone, an end to extended unemployment compensation, less police and firefighters--versus hedge fund managers (all of whom played a huge role in the mess we're in) getting taxed at a bullshit rate, that's considerably lower than most of us pay (Robert Reich--can we elect this guy President?--has an excellent analysis). And the Democrats are just slinking away, when they should be screaming about it from the roofs of every building and home in America. Is this the Democratic Party that I signed up for?

Obama has become the second coming of Bill Clinton--complete and utter mediocrity, without the pure shit luck of a dot.com boom to help us forget how mediocre his leadership has been. Healthcare reform has its bright spots (an end to lack of coverage for pre-existing conditions, kids kept on their parents' insurance until age 26, an end to recision), but I have a hunch that the individual mandate unless markedly changed is going to come back and bite Democrats in the ass, and without, at the very least, the public option the whole exercise was pretty much futile. Financial reform is a joke, as nothing with any teeth has passed and without serious safeguards we're setting ourselves up for another disaster at some point down the road. I mean, what exactly have we gotten for our troubles in getting these people elected? Stem cell research and the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act. Woo-fucking-hoo.

Yes, I know that things would be considerably worse under McCain, but if we can't take bold action after winning a huge majority in Congress and the White House in a landslide after the worst financial crisis in 80 years, when the fuck can we? Where are the courageous leaders of our party who are going to stand up and essentially say, for example, "Deficits my ass! We need to spend to keep the economy going, we need to spend to keep the unemployed going, we need to spend to make the necessary repairs to our infrastructure..."? Or "Wall Street? Fuck them--they're going to pay to make Main Street whole again...." Or "BP stands for Better Pay Up...." Apparently they only exist in an alternate universe (or our fantasies) because there certainly aren't any of them (at least with any serious clout) in the Democratic Party now.

I've tried all day to come up with the proper adjective for all of this, but the best I can do is: pathetic.

One thing's for sure--my money this election cycle is going for books and CDs. At least then I'll get something of value for my hard-earned cash.

Peace,
emaycee

Pinheads in the Free Press and News, ad nauseum

So many pinheads, so little time... Once again, Nolan Finley is proving he sucks at math (or is very selective in his use of information). While I am not happy at the amount of money banks and financial institutions have funneled to the Dems, it's funny how Finley only mentions Dems having received money. By my calculations (directly from open secrets.org that Finley mentions), the financial industry for this election cycle has given $6.5 million to Republicans, and $6.3 million to the Dems--that strikes me as roughly 50/50, not the three quarters Finley claims has gone to Democrats. Further, when you look at the last 20 years as Finley mentions, $131 million has gone to Republicans, $90 million to Democrats. Please understand I am not defending the Democrats (Chuck Schumer, you know who you are) taking this money--just pointing out, as Finley does not, that Republicans are even moreso guilty. But what really pisses me off about his piece is the fact that once again Conservidiots are deflecting blame from where it really belongs--the financial industry. Yes, Congress and the SEC could have done much better in protecting us, but ultimately, this is about the financial industry's greed and carelessness. So the News thinks President Obama should name a SCOTUS nominee who will "hear cases with an open mind." Funny, but I don't remember this being one of their concerns when GWB was nominating conservative judicial activists Roberts and Alito. Apparently, only Democrats need to nominate justices with an open mind--Republicans are free to nominate ideologues at their pleasure. Frankly, fuck that--Obama should nominate someone who is to the left of Stevens (if that's possible). And young, too, so he/she can spend years hectoring Roberts and Alito. Ron Dzwonkowski (Wonk from here on out) has another of his lame-ass columns on "commonsense folks," this time concerning the federal deficit. Paul Krugman has written extensively on the difference between the deficit itself and what it means versus the politics of the deficit (a good example can be found here). And any initiative that has the Peter J. Peterson Foundation on board is asking for trouble (Digby here). Hard to know where to begin there's so much bullshit in this article, but first off, I find it really hard to imagine that Dave Camp's entire congressional district is full of folks "who still believe in saving up for what you want and not spending money you don't have." Considering that consumer debt skyrocketed in the early aughts, you'd think a few of them would have spent beyond their means. And just what does this every American being "about $42,000 in the hole" supposed to mean, other than being some second rate scare tactic? Like I'm going to have to come up with 42k to make up for it (and good fucking luck with that). No, as the economy improves, so will tax revenues and the deficit will go down. Finally, does Wonk actually believe, given the complete lack of support Republicans have shown President Obama thus far, that "commonsense" Dave Camp is going to do anything other than push the Republican's colossal failure policies? I'll believe it when Rep. Camp starts talking seriously about cutting the defense budget. And just where are we going to cut anyway? Everyone loves talking about pork, but it's not going to put anything other than a minor dent in it. What do we want--even worse roads? Less education for our kids? Less police and firemen? Worse regulation on our food and work safety? I'd love to hear where they're going to cut that is going to do anything but make our lives worse (though I do have a couple of ideas that won't make our lives miserable--get out of Afghanistan and Iraq now, end corporate welfare). What a fucking idiot. I mean, really--a ban on texting is a restriction on free speech? Isn't it really just a ban on not always being able to do what you want when you want to? I mean if the idiotic messages being passed along are that important, couldn't you pull over for a second? Besides, as Oliver Wendell Holmes so famously stated, the right to free speech isn't absolute (i.e., you can't run into a crowded theatre and shout "Fire!" just because you feel like it). If it presents a clear and present danger (the study she cites says studies have shown that phone use while driving increases the risk of accidents), it can be prohibited. You can swing your fist all you want until it comes into contact with my nose. The problem is that too many people just aren't all that responsible (like the idiot who almost slammed into my family head-on tonight because apparently she thought stop signs are optional). Note to those who do use phones and drive: if you ever hit my car while you're talking on the phone or texting, not only will you be going to the hospital for your injuries, but also to have a phone removed from your ass.... Do you suppose if the Hutatree were Muslims they'd be getting released? Just wondering.... Peace, emaycee