EVENT

JPMorgan Chase acknowledges $2 billion trading loss

JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank in the United States, said Thursday that it lost $2 billion in the past six weeks in a trading portfolio designed to hedge against risks the company takes with its own money. The exotic financial investments got the world in trouble in 2008. The question a lot of people are asking now, did JPMorgan Chase learn nothing?

VENT

I know the answer to that one. JP Morgan Chase learned a lot from the 2008 debacle. They learned that unlike the rest of us, if they gamble on irresponsible investments, the rest of us (taxpayers) will give them trillions of interest free dollars. They learnt that they can pull off the biggest heist in history and not go to jail. They may even be given a top position guarding our financial henhouse. Jamie Diamond, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, currently sits on the board of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Ironically, that's the very organization that is supposed to oversee his bank’s financial practices, the organization that is supposed to issue all sorts of regulations that control what his bank can do. nothing has It's also the very organization he has been lobbying to relax the rules about the bets he wants to make. What do you do with a guy like Diamond? In 2008 when high rollers like him nearly collapsed the economy, we were told we had to  "keep the talent."  Yet we insist on cutbacks and performance based pay for teachers. Apparently, those greedy characters who educate our children and brown bag it everyday are the real drag on our economy.  It seems to me that two billion dollars could hire quite a few teachers. Diamond called the trades his bank made "flawed, complex, poorly reviewed, poorly executed and poorly monitored", but hey that's the kind of talent we just can't afford to lose.

This episode should be a red flag that four years after the 2008 meltdown the problem has not been fixed. As a matter of fact the problem has become worse. Remember "Too Big To Fail"? Well, the surviving mega banks are much bigger. Instead of breaking them up into smaller institutions, we have accomplished the opposite. The five largest banks, which controlled $6.1 trillion in assets before the collapse, by the end of 2011 had assets worth $8.5 trillion — equal to more than half of U.S. economic output.

The Justice Department is going to launch an investigation on the JPMorgan Chase fiasco. I doubt that Diamond and his colleagues are shaking in their boots considering it's the same government that failed to enact much of the Dodd-Frank bill over the last three and a half years.

I'm just an artist not a economist, but it seems simple enough to me that if the banks were to big to fail before, we might want to try breaking them up into smaller banks. And maybe while we're at it we could reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act. But at the top of the Big Banks' asset sheets are our politicians, so we won't be doing that. That means the recent JPMorgan thing is just a miniscule pre-bearer of what is to come.

So we know what the Wall Street fat cats learned from the 2008 meltdown. The rest of should learn to pay close attention to which politicians are doing what and let them know if they don't start working to protect our bottom line, there's going to be a very hostile take-over.

What One Piece Of Art Revealed

My new painting inspired by the Trayvon Martin tragedy called "A Tale Of Two Hoodies", has created somewhat of a stir. A popular subject of blogs, it has been noted more than 17,000 times over the weekend. Most enlightening were the many disturbing responses on my site revealing a nation that sadly hasn't come as far as I had thought.

The piece was meant to illuminate the travesty of racially profiling innocent children and call into question any role of racism in the interpretation of policy. Like all my art, the painting was meant to create a civil public discourse.  The opportunity to share views could and should enlighten and open minds.

Reminiscent of the reaction to my painting of President Obama titled "The Truth" in 2009, the reaction revealed a very fractured nation with great distain for other points of view. The piece depicts a KKK hooded police officer drawing his weapon on a small black child in a hoodie who is merely offering the policeman some generic candy. The people who were so enraged, never were able to quite understand that the painting while inspired by the Trayvon case, was not meant as a literal depiction of the incident , but representative of a broader problem. If the painting pondered the degree of racism in the country today, the reaction to it certainly answered the question. I was personally taken aback by the unashamedly racist comments made by so many. 

Based on the response I have received, (and this may not scientifically prove anything) the hatred and racism seems linked to party affiliation. My findings beg the question: Are conservatives more racist than progressives? And if so, why? Perhaps it is because they feel they are being forced by socialist entitlements to share their money with minorities who are on the dole. Maybe they think that minorities don't work as hard and want something for nothing … from them. That kind of thinking might make sense to some educated, fiscal conservative sitting in his cushy office who doesn't want to part with his "hard earned millions." But the socially conservative, beer drinking redneck enjoys the same entitlements. That guy is just ignorant enough to let the fiscal conservative use his racial prejudice against his own best interests. Incredulously, many of these hostile people feel like they are the victims.

I didn't go in with any pre conceived notions. I draw my conclusions from the responses that I have received, you can read them and decide for yourself at http://www.artandresponse.com/paintings/a-tale-of-two-hoodies.html.

I was at Zuccotti and Union Square parks today in New York City in search of Occupy Wall Street protests. What I found (and didn't find) was discouraging.

First I went to Zuccotti Park, the birthplace of the OWS revolution, to show my support. I'm very supportive when the temperature is seventy degrees or above. I journeyed far and came well armed with my Wall Street Wally pig mask and about 2,000 cards promoting "The Art Of Corpocracy" video http://artandresponse.com/corpocracy promoting action against the government's servitude to the 1%.

When I arrived at the hollowed destination, I found the block that was previously lined with protesters touting clever signs, now were lined with people holding signs selling bargain blackberry contracts. Turns out that Bloomberg only allows people in that park with signs that offer a 10% discount. Score it:Capitalism-1, Democracy-0

Taken aback, but undeterred, I traveled upward to Union Square Park where OWS had planned a protest in solidarity with the Million Hoodie March for Trayvon Martin. You would think the fact that that case concerned a (counterfit) cop killing a black kid (who was guilty of wearing a hoodie) without being held responsible would somehow temper Bloomberg's Anti-First Amendment Rights Brigade to tread lightly. Not so much. Before I arrived the police had stormed the protest, trying to close off the park with metal barricades. They arrested six people with what some might consider unnecessary force considering one woman was knocked unconscious and taken away in an ambulance. By the time I arrived there were a smaller group of protesters (50 or so) peacefully displaying signs and singing songs. Then came a brigade of blue surging in for no apparent reason to trample on the signs and look intimidating.

I find it discouraging that corporations have more rights than (actual) people and they won't let us protest it..

 EVENT

House Passes Bill That Will Make Protesting Illegal at Secret Service Covered Events

The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. Under the act, the government is given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country where there is any person protected by the Secret Service.

VENT

The first amendment has been taking a beating in the last couple of years and sure isn't what it used to be. In 2010, the Supreme Court extended it to corporations, giving their CEOs  free reign to spend unlimited amounts to fund campaigns, and effectively drown out the voice of their employees, who might not agree and can’t afford that kind of free speech

WASHINGTON (AP) — With the Senate adjourned for the holidays, House Republicans are moving to shelve a bipartisan two-month extension of the Social Security payroll tax cut that cleared the Senate over the weekend and are demanding instead that their fellow lawmakers return to the Capitol for negotiations.
 
After a spate of bipartisanship last week, the combatants are back in full-throated warfare over President Barack Obama's payroll tax initiative and other expiring measures, including jobless benefits for almost 1.8 million people who will lose them next month if Congress doesn't act.
 
The Senate's short-term, lowest-common-denominator approach would renew a 2 percentage point cut in the Social Security payroll tax, plus jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed, and would prevent a huge cut in Medicare payments to doctors.
 
"With millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet, it would be unconscionable for Speaker (John) Boehner to block a bipartisan agreement that would protect middle-class families from the thousand-dollar tax increase looming on January 1st," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who negotiated the two-month extension with Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. The 2 percentage point tax cut provides about a $1,000 annual tax cut for a typical earner making about $50,000 a year.

VENT

True to their solemn vow to abide by the demands of Grover Norquist (a lobbyist holding no elected office, and the most powerful man in government), the Republicans have threatened filibuster every bill the Democrats have put forth to help reduce the deficit that includes letting the Bush era tax cuts expire for just millionaires. So against raising taxes of any kind are they, that they are willing to shut down the government if any one dare whisper such a suggestion as closing corporate tax loopholes. This is because their first priority (besides making Obama a one term president) is to not raise taxes.
 
So why then have the House Republicans decided to play Scrooge this holiday season and not even let the bill passed by the Democratically controlled Senate which would extend the payroll tax cuts for another two months even come up for a vote? Could it be that they know that if the bill isn't passed, the economic recovery will have stalled, making their first priority (the afore mentioned one term Obama presidency) more likely? But isn't it hypocritical for a party that vows to not raise taxes? If this bill isn't passed, middle class families making $50,000 would have to pay an additional tax of $1,000 a year. Maybe their sentiment just needs an asterisk. They are the party that stands firm against tax increases (*for the wealthy.)  See? Now it all makes sense. After all, somebody has to sacrifice. You can bet your bottom dollar (and that may be all your left with) that if there were a bill that would prevent the raising of capitol gains tax, estate tax or any tax that would put an imperceivable dent in the coffers of their rich benefactors, they would vote it through faster than a corporate jet.
 
I've heard both John Boehner and Eric Cantor (he's the guy who in high school reminded the teacher she forgot to assign homework and whom jocks used to shove in his locker) cry (in Boehner's case, literally) "CLASS WARFARE" when the possibility of a .05% increase in taxes on millionaires would come up. It seems to me in "the war on class", they don't have any. If the Grand Old Party doesn't let this extension pass, your New Year is going to be about a grand less happy.
 
#corpocracy  #Cantor  #Boehner

DES MOINES — Newt Gingrich enters the final four weeks of campaigning before the Iowa caucuses with as the Republican frontrunner, beating Mitt Romney by a 15% margin, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.Gingrich is rated more favorably than any of the other six remaining candidates in the race among voters who say they are likely to attend the Republican caucuses in Iowa. He would be supported enthusiastically as his party’s presidential nominee by more voters than any of his rivals.

VENT

Searching for the Great White Hope to beat Obama in 2012, Republican voters have gone through a whole Disney-like list of cartoon characters. They went crazy for Sarah Palin (Hottie), Donald Trump (Trumpy), Michele Bachman (Crazy), Rick Perry (Dopey) and Herman Cain (Sexy). After suffering multiple disillusionments about those untested candidates, Republican voters who have been desperately looking for an alternative to Romney are now turning to someone who's jaded past they are already familiar (and apparently comfortable) with. They are willing to overlook the fact that Newt is ethically challenged and suffers from acute hypocrisy.

My brother sent me this speech of Newt's on YouTube, certain that after viewing it I would finally see the light and be converted to the wonderfulness that is Newt. I agree that Newt's the smartest character running for the Republican nomination (which would hardly qualify him for Mensa.) He's also the only one skilled enough to give Obama a challenging debate. I'll even admit that Newt makes a good point about the wrongness of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. Unfortunately, he lacks credibility on the issue considering received $1.6 million from them.

It's not the only time he's been a wee bit hypocritical. Let's not forget that he sanctimoniously led the charge of impeachment against Clinton for having sex with an intern, even though he himself was having an affair with a House of Representatives staffer. Not too surprising considering that he had previously had divorced his wife who was suffering from cancer for a chick he was fooling around with. So much for family values.

In the same speech he admonishes those who were against a cross being put up in the Mojave Desert for being fanatical fascists, meanwhile he was whole heartedly against a Mosque being built in Manhattan.

He's a hell of a guy, that Newt, if you forget those little bouts of hypocrisy and the fact that before he retired from Congress in shame, he was charged with 84 ethics violations, including violating federal tax law and lying to the House Ethics Panel. After all he's done, the man should be in the Big House, not the White House.

#Corpocracy #OWS #Newt

The University of California at Davis has placed two police officers on administrative leave after video of them pepper-spraying non-violent protesters at point-blank range sparked outrage at school officials. Friday's incident has led to calls for the resignation of UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi, who announced the action in a written statement Sunday. Katehi said she shares the "outrage" of students and was "deeply saddened" by the use of the chemical irritant by campus police.

"I am deeply saddened that this happened on our campus, and as chancellor, I take full responsibility for the incident," she said. "However, I pledge to take the actions needed to ensure that this does not happen again."

VENT

Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but as far as I'm concerned, using pepper spray like weed killer on peaceful protesters should be considered use of excessive force. Officer John Pike, who can be seen on YouTube casually spraying the non-violent Davis students with vast amounts of pain inducing chemicals is not the only one who should be held accountable for his heinous actions. Considering that he and his fellow officers have been equipped with Kosco amounts of spray when the were sent implies that they were probably given permission to use it by their "superiors". I heard a police spokeswoman saying that the protesters were sprayed for their own safety. As Sarah Palin says, "Thanks, but no thanks."

While the horrifying video image of the cop spraying the Davis kids rivals the tape of the Rodney King beating or the protests of 1989 in Tiananmen Square, itis by no means the only example of police brutality against OWS protesters captured on film. Here are a just few more examples.

We are supposed to be the land of the free not, Communist China. I can understand authorities not wanting people camping out, using public parks as their rent free living space, but in this country we are supposed to have a right to assemble in peaceful protester without being tortured by the officers who are supposed to protect us. The authorities use all kinds of excuses to keep the protesters out of the parks like unsanitary conditions. Isn’t it nicer and more American to install a few porta-potties than beat the shit out of peaceful citizens? Oh, and next time, hold the pepper.

The sexual harassmentcontroversy surrounding presidential hopeful Herman Cain does not appear to be hurting him much. According to CNN, Cain's chief of staff reported that Friends of Cain, the Cain campaign organization, received $400,000 in donations on Monday, calling it a "clear vote of confidence" for the Republican candidate.

To add emphasis, a poll from Quinnipiac revealed Cain has increased his lead over former front-runner Mitt Romneyin the nomination race.

VENT

The double standards of the Republican Leaders (and followers) are dumfoundingly beyond logic. The same people who demanded that Weiner step down from his congressional post are supporting Horny Herman's bid for President of the United States.

Let's take an objective view of the two. Weiner twitted some inappropriate but impressive pictures of himself in his tighty- whities to a woman from his cell phone. For that, he was forced by Republicans and Democrats alike to retire from congress in shame. When your behavior doesn't come up to congressional moral standards, it's like Charlie Sheen telling you your lifestyle is out of control. The bar for acceptable sexual misconduct has been set and I can accept that. Now comes along Herman Cain, a man running for the highest office in the land, who just happens to have forgotten about having settled a couple of sexual harassment suits. So far, there are four accusers to date. To be clear, the definition of sexual harassment is: intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors.[1] Sexual harassment is a form of illegal employment discrimination in many countries, and is a form of abuse (sexual and psychological) and bullying.

Personally, I consider that an even more serious offense that sexting. Instead of demanding he drop out of the race, Republicans  rewarded him with more money and higher poll numbers. Thank you for your support. That well known champion of African Americans , Rush Limbaugh, even accused the "liberal" media of racism for suggesting Cain drop out.

In this great country of ours a man is considered innocent until proven guilty, or if he's rich enough to settle out of court (unless he's a Democrat.)

Eighteen people were arrested Tuesday for using cameras in the Wisconsin Assembly gallery. Concerned citizens had gone to the capitol to protest a series of arrests in recent weeks of individuals who carried signs or took photos or video in defiance of an Assembly ban. The event coincided with the implementation of Wisconsin's new concealed carry law, which allows residents to carry a concealed firearm -- including inside the Assembly gallery.
 
On the agenda in Tuesday's session was a bill to institute the Castle Doctrine, a "shoot first, ask questions later" bill that gives a person immunity from civil and criminal liability if they shoot another in self defense in their home, work, or vehicle.

VENT

Ok, this one is so ridiculous, even Charlton Heston would have to think twice before defending it. You can shoot anyone in Wisconsin without consequence ... just not with a camera. Texas move over, there's a new kid in town taking over your title as the craziest frickin’ state in the nation. Why does Governor Walker think cameras are more dangerous than guns. Could it be because they can record what's going on in the State Assembly? Which begs the question, 'What's going on in the State Assembly that's more crazy than allowing people to kill each other?'
 
Maybe Governor Walker is just an old fashioned type of guy. He wants to return to simpler times. I thought Walker's issuance of the union-busting law to strip state employees the right to collective bargaining was regressive. But now it's the wild, wild west in Wisconsin. Which of course explains why there would be no cameras.
 
Now wait just a cotton pickin' minute there Gov. If there's not anything in the constitution given' folks the right to bear cameras, you can be darn tootin' it's only because there weren't invented yet when they done wrote it.

OAKLAND, Calif. — A clash between Oakland police and Occupy Wall Street protesters left an Iraq War veteran hospitalized Wednesday after a projectile struck him in a conflict that came as tensions grew over demonstration encampments across the San Francisco Bay Area.

Scott Olsen, 24, suffered a fractured skull Tuesday in a march with other protesters toward City Hall. The demonstrators had been making an attempt to re-establish a presence in the area of a disbanded protesters' camp when they were met by officers in riot gear. Deeply disturbing video

VENT

The aforementioned event could be considered an accident, an isolated incident. Unfortunately, while it's the most obviously egregious, it's just part of a bigger pattern of the "authorities" doing everything in their power to stop peaceful citizens from protesting against corporate control of our government. Seems freedom of speech is only fine for some people like corporations. We the people are not being represented by the government and the "authorities" don't want us to complain. Hence, we the people are also not being served nor protected by the police. It seems we need protection from them. A common chant I've heard from the protesters to the police was "Who are you protecting?" A good question indeed. Another chant was "Cops are  the 99%." That may be true but they are the part of the 99% with the guns and they want to keep their jobs in this economy. That's also true of of the politicians passing laws that help the 1% and rob the rest of us from a fair opportunity of achieving the American dream. Only we get to vote those politicians (and the mayors responsible for their police) into those jobs. All we have to do is threaten to kick the mayors out of office and their police forces will stop being so … forceful. The cops themselves aren't such a bad lot. After all, when I participated in the OWS events in NY, I found the police officers to be reasonable and somewhat empathetic overall. They were just people following orders and doing their jobs. Of course the same could also be said of Nazi SS officers.

Zuccotti Park Occupiers marched to Washington Square around 2:00PM. It was a leftist protest version of a tailgate party, with all the various factions joining together before the big Times Square event. It felt like they were preparing for radicalism’s Super Bowl.

Socialists/Communists/Anarchist:The storm troopers of the Occupy movement, the statists and anti-statists have linked arm-in-arm (literally) to bring down the system as we know it. Whenever I talk to these guys, they are quick to rail against capitalism. More than any other group, they openly call for the collapse of the financial system, the end of America as we know it, and the implementation of a Marxist mobocracy.

VENT

I'll admit that I've felt increasingly despondent and hopeless over the last several years as I realized that my children were going to be the first generation in my family that were going to have it tougher than the generation before it. And it was even more disheartening to know that it is all because of the unrelenting greed of the few, the powerful and the corrupt. Our country and economy have been gaining momentum in a downward spiral due to the mutation of our democracy into a corpocracy and there was nothing we could do about it … until now.

I was there at the big march from Zuccotti Park to Chase bank to Washington Square passing out free posters and taking pictures (as Wall Street Wally) with supporters of the movement. I was in the thick of it when we took Times Square. My recollections of the Oct 15th event are a little different than Bucky boy’s. By the end of the day my hoofs were killing me but I was in hog heaven because I felt like we, the people (sound familiar?) successfully spoke up for ourselves. The other 1% and those they pay to represent their interests (like Mr. Sexton) will try to discredit the OWS movement in an effort to keep the status quo. After Saturday, I'm feeling like they won't be able to do it. Their propaganda media machines aren't going to be loud enough to drown out the voice of the people, not 99% of us anyway. They can try to divide us with wedge issues and such, but we aren't going to fall for their old tricks anymore. We've had a taste of victory on Saturday in the fight to get a fair and equal opportunity to earn a slice of the American pie and that's only wet our appetite and made us more resolute. One recurring chant/invitation from the protesters to the crowds watching was “ Don’t watch us, join us.” I suggest you take us up on it, you’ll feel better doing something about it.

EVENT

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie sure knows how to make a press conference interesting. When formally announcing his endorsement of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's presidential bid, Christie drew a long metaphor on the difference between Obama and Romney's approach to the American dream — using pie.

"I know that Mitt Romney believes that the American pie can be grown bigger — that it can be an infinite size — because of the infinite nature of American ingenuity, and effort, and character." he said. "That's what this election is gonna be about."

VENT

We've all heard about art imitating life but this is an uncanny case of life imitating art. A friend of mine sent me this article of Chris Christie (photo upper right) talking about American pie because he was familiar with my painting titled 'American Pie' (photo upper left). Even though the painting is particularly timely considering the current wave of "Occupation Wall Street" mania, it was indeed completed over a year ago. When the painting was conceived, neither I, nor most people had ever heard of Governor Christie, the man many desperate conservatives have since considered the great white (hope) of the GOP presidential primaries. I swear. I've got the copyright certificate to prove it.

Let's for now try to ignore the obvious likeness between our reluctant non-presidential candidate and the protagonist of my painting and instead concentrate on the substance of Christie's metaphor. By the look of him you would assume Christie would be an expert on pie and the ability to "grow to an infinite size". The Governor said that he and his new best friend Mit believe the American way of life was built on entrepreneurship and allowing the unleashing American spirit and inventiveness. While that was greatly true once upon a time, somewhere along the way some of those entrepreneurs became so rich powerful that they stared buying the favors of politicians  who would then rig the system and literally rewrite the laws in their favor. This has taken the freedom to compete out of the free market and put the spirit of competition on a short leash. Companies are taken over by corporations who are taken over by larger conglomerates until they are too big to fail. That makes for no competition for them and no choices for consumers and employees). And the government lets it happen. I don't know about you, but that lack of opportunity kinda hurts me right in my American spirit.

Christie also said that Obama wants to tell Americans who are not doing well that the pie is only so big and that if you want more you have to take it from others. Isn't that what those with have been doing to those without since time began (or at least since Reagan). Like the old Ray Charles song "Them that's got, shall get. Them that don't shall lose." There must be a finite amount of pie because the republicans want to cut Grandma's medicare and social security so they can give tax breaks to their rich donors. In New York at the end of this year, they will be cutting jobs and services so they can give 5 billion dollars in tax breaks to billionaires. Isn't that taking some pie from someone and giving it to someone else? Someone who has obviously had more than their fair share of pie? Yeah, I'm looking at you Governor Crisco.

June 29, 2011- Former Halliburton employee and gang rape victim, Jamie Leigh Jones is seeking justice for herself and all other women who have been raped and can't sue due to binding mandatory clauses in their employment contracts while working overseas for government contractors. Jones is one of a group of women who claim they were harassed or assaulted while working for KBR and former parent company Halliburton in Iraq.

VENT

The more details you hear about this story the more enraged you get. It seems Ms. Jones was savagely gang raped by her co-workers who had no fear of facing legal consequences. Instead of compassion, her Halliburton/KBR employers imprisoned her in a container denying her access to the outside world.  An Army doctor's examination that verified that Jones was a victim of gang rape has mysteriously disappeared. It doesn't matter much anyway since Halliburton/KBR claims its immune from being sued in criminal court. Apparently they're right. Laws put in place primarily under the Bush administration basically give contractors working in Iraq immunity from prosecution. When the criminal courts failed to act, Jones' lawyers filed a civil suit, only to be met with Halliburton's response that all her claims were to be decided in arbitration because she'd signed away her rights to bring the company to court when she signed her employment contract. The arbitration process is basically a stacked deck whereby the corporation almost always wins. Corporations regularly use mandatory arbitration clauses to bypass the judicial system.

Unknowingly, Jamie signed away her right to a jury trial at the age of 20 and without the advice of counsel. You might be thinking that she did it to herself, that she should have read all the fine print when she applied for that job. Don't judge her too harshly, the chances are that you and everyone you know have done the same thing, and often. Don't think so? Then I guess you knew that when you signed up for that checking account, you gave permission for the back to freely give out your social security number to whomever they wish. Yeah, that's right, the same company that will sell you identity theft protection. Most people don't consider that when we click on the "Accept" button or sign those ever growing "forms" filled with ever shrinking type we sign away our legal and sometimes human rights. It's our responsibility to understand what we're signing, you say. I guess it's the responsibility of everyone  to  finish law school too, or bring a lawyer with us every time we go shopping. We sign these "agreements" without understanding them because we really have little to no choice if we need the product or service they are extorting us for. This is America, and we are free to purchase from their competition but they too will insist that we agree to whatever conditions they demand. In just about any industry today, the few remaining companies are more like cohorts than competitors. Can anyone say collusion?  If you assumed our government would protect us from such obvious injustice, then you are more naive than young Jamie Leigh was.

As always, it comes down to the fact that our elected leaders work for the people who put them in office. And without limits to corporate campaign donations, our respected leaders will always work for and side with the Halliburtons of this world. That leaves the rest of us as vulnerable as poor Jamie Leigh Jones.
 

On June 22, 2011 The Supreme Court gave the pharmaceutical industry a pair of victories, shielding the makers of generic drugs from most lawsuits by injured patients and declaring that drug makers have a free-speech right to buy private prescription records to boost their sales pitches to doctors.

Vent

Lucky for us, Federal law requires the makers of brand name drugs to label their products with FDA-approved warning information and to update the warnings when reports of new problems arise.Now the Supreme Court decides that makers of generic brands don’t have to. That doesn’t sound so bad until you consider that 75% of the prescriptions written in this country are for generic versions of brand-name drugs. So warnings about the possible dangers of their products are something the drug companies don’t have to share yet at the same time the same court decides that the same drug companies can pass around your personal information to whomever they wish for marketing purposes. We’ll I guess they figure that the time you save not reading drug warnings can better be used reading unsolicited ads. O.K., score one for Big Business. I’m sure the Supreme Court also rules in favor of the little guy sometimes. Right? Let’s take a look at some recent decisions.

Just two days earlier they blocked a massive sex discrimination lawsuit against Walmart on behalf of female employees in a decision that makes it harder to mount large-scale bias claims against the nation's biggest companies. Alright, 0 for 2, so it was a bad week for the little guys and (especially) gals. Let’s be fair, two cases in a week doesn’t necessarily make a pattern. Maybe the Supremes are just in a big business kind of mood. Let’s go back a little earlier in the year.

I see that on February 22, 2011 the Supreme Court ruled to Federal protect pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits by parents who claim that vaccines harmed their children. Well, we all know parents can sometimes get a little oversensitive when their children die from an FDA approved vaccine. And after all, it’s not the pharmaceutical companies fault that those kids didn’t react well to their product.

The Supreme Court justices are there for life (talk about job security). They are appointed by our elected Presidents and confirmed by our elected Congress. These conservative Supremes are the people who in 2009 ruled that Large corporations can spend unlimited amounts for political campaigns. Diana Ross' Supremes could have made a better ruling. So in a nutshell, Big Business spends billions to elect officials who appoint judges who rule in favor of … guess who … that’s right …Big Business.

Jun 23, 2011– With only weeks to go before the country hits the debt ceiling, Republican negotiators walked out, throwing doubt on Washington's ability to reach a deal that would allow the government to keep borrowing and avoid a debt default.

Representative Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House of Representatives, said participants had identified trillions of dollars in potential spending cuts but were deadlocked over tax increases sought by Democrats. Republican Senator Jon Kyl also pulled out, according to an aide.

"Regardless of the progress that has been made, the tax issue must be resolved before discussions can continue," Cantor said in a statement. House Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Washington, said Democrats must take tax hikes off the table. "These conversations could continue if they take the tax hikes out of the conversation," Boehner said.

VENT

Let me get this straight, default could occur if Congress does not act by August 2, pushing the United States back into recession and sending markets plunging around the globe. Republicans refuse to negotiate any deal to raise the debt limit if the Democrats want to rollback the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and/or cut subsidies to the oil companies to help cut the deficit. I don't doubt for one minute that the Republican leaders are fighting hard out for the well being of the people they represent? The only problem I have is that I'm not one of the top richest 2% that they represent at the expense of the rest of us. I wish the Democrats would fight as hard for the other 98%. They don't. What the Republican leaders lack as human beings they more than make up for as negotiators. I know. I've looked up the word in the dictionary. Negotiate: To try to reach an agreement or compromise by discussion with others. Now if only Cantor would look up the word compromise. Maybe it's too close to the word communism.

The reason they refuse to negotiate is because they won’t compromise on the Bush tax cuts. It’s not the first Time. Remember just a couple of months ago when they did the same thing with last years budget? They were willing to shut down the whole government unless all our favorite millionaires got to keep their Bush Bucks. They were in such a tuff about it that they refused to vote to give our heroic 9/11 first responders medical coverage until the Bush’s Breaks for Billionaires were firmly in place. You see, the Blue Team insist that the super rich need the Bush tax cuts to create jobs and reduce the deficit. Of course, I’m just an artist, not an economist but it seems to me that since they've enjoyed those tax cuts these last ten years our job growth became smaller and our deficit larger.

As far these debt talks are concerned, The Red Team and the Blue Team are basically playing a game of chicken. Once again, the Blue Team is threatening to throw the whole economy under the bus for the benefit of the rich and those who sell the gas for the bus.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. formally launched his campaign for the White House with a promise of civility in his "high-road" quest for the presidency. Mr. Huntsman, who only weeks ago was President Barack Obama's ambassador to China, did not run from the distinction of having served the man he seeks to replace in the White House Instead, he framed his candidacy as a throwback to a time when political discourse was less coarse and more policy driven, implicitly slapping at some conservatives who have challenged the legitimacy or patriotism of Mr. Obama.

VENT

As every conservative candidate knows, one must paint President Barack HUSEIN Obama as un-American, socialist, communist or muslim, and use the requisite comparisons to Hitler and or the anti-Christ. Since Jon Huntsman isn't doing any of those things, I assume he must be using the pre-Karl Rove Republican campaign playbook. Stylistically at least, he certainly stands out among other republican presidential candidates. In advertising, positioning yourself as unique among other brands is referred to as "point of difference."  This is a difference I for one welcome. With hate and fear mongering being staples in the contemporary conservative setlist, can a reasonable candidate focused on the issues survive the primaries? By trying to win the Republican primary as a "civil conservative candidate" is Jon Huntsman an oxymoron or just a moron? I'm sorry, that wasn't very civil of me.

Spewing hate and fear and focusing on social issues is what one does when they don't have any big ideas going forward and their own record is not something that will win the election. The fact that Mr. Huntsman is not relying on that strategy and has served presidents from both parties, makes him more appealing to me and I assume Independents in general. I may find out that I won't like his positions anymore than I do the rest of the field, but I am more willing to consider them. I don't know if he's smart to run this kind of campaign, but I think registered republicans who don't want Obama to win would be smart to vote for Huntsman in the primary.

After days of denials, a choked-up New York Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner confessed Monday that he tweeted a bulging-underpants photo of himself to a young woman and admitted to "inappropriate" exchanges with six women before and after getting married. He apologized for lying but said he would not resign.

VENT

First, former Rep. Chris Lee, the New York Republican was caught earlier this year sending a shirtless photo to a woman on Craig's List, and now Weiner is using modern technology for raunch instead of good. Apparently our married, middle aged elected officials think of themselves as rockstars. Of course, from the look of Weiner's photo it's more than his ego that's bloated. The amount of media attention spent on our elected leaders' sex lives seems disproportionate compared to that devoted to their voting record. Again, looking at Weiner's photo it's not the only thing that's disproportionate. You see that's the problem. It's more fun to poke fun at a member of congress' member than to investigate who he's really working for and what that means to us. Don't believe me? Try watching C-Span for more than a half hour.