Pimps

In today’s 5-4 decision in the matter of Citizens United v. FEC, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (four conservatives and one swing vote) have given labor unions and US corporations (many of whom have foreign ownership) the right to spend unlimited funds in sponsoring political ads - many via via back-door puppet organizations with noble-sounding names (e.g. Citizens for Banking Reform, etc).

What this means for ordinary citizens is that their power at the ballot box has been dramatically undercut by a group of organizations with billions of dollars at their disposal whose sole purpose is profit and pleasing their stockholders.

After hearing this decision today I can only imagine how many CEOs had to suddenly dash to the bathroom after suddenly having pissed themselves with glee, as the court's decision was the ultimate Christmas gift.

As a result, and in no uncertain terms, this decision by the court’s established right-wing has made an existing problem—the power of unions and corporations (and their lobbyists) to influence lawmakers--and made it much worse, in addition to making the same very difficult to regulate in the future.

Thus, in appreciation for their efforts, I expect that Judges Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will all be met outside their DC-area homes tonight by stretch Hummers - each containing $10,000 hookers and small mountain of cocaine accompanied by a simple gift card simply reading "Courtesy of a friend."

High Times

The following story on DFTCW raises the age-old topic of the hypocritical state of US drug laws dating back to the 1930s, namely those on marijuana.

While I don't drink nor touch drugs myself, the case linked above exposes a massive double standard on recreational drugs in American culture. That is, while alcohol (a depressant) is openly celebrated--and far more destructive than pot when abused--the latter is not an addictive substance. Yet every time a national discussion of relaxing legal penalties on small amounts of pot is raised, the Puritanical ghost of Harry Anslinger appears and screams bloody murder.

IMO, the smartest and most practical policy on pot is to legalize it in the US (for those above 21), and make it subject to state and Federal taxation. Doing so would neutralize the flow of pot into the US almost overnight by Central American drug-runners, and save untold billions in cost and manpower for the DEA who could then focus on the big fish trafficking in hard opiates.

Just don’t inhale waiting for this happen anytime soon.

Red Planet

If today’s Scott Brown-related trash talking by Republicans is an indicator that any hopes for tangible health reform are now likely dead, to them I say congratulations: you scored a big touchdown for the health insurance lobby, and have accomplished absolutely dick to improve the quality of life for Americans without health coverage or with pre-existing conditions.

It’s good to know where your priorities lie. In the meantime, I'll be waiting with bated breath for the GOP's own master plan on health reform, which I suspect will arrive sometime in 2051 - just before NASA successfully lands a man on Mars.

I Want It Yesterday

Do Americans truly expect the economic morass we currently enjoy, and took nearly a decade to create through a mix of Bush policy blunders and rampant greed, to have been remedied in twelve months?

Apparently, tonight, much of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts thinks so.

Free Advice for Obama (Not That He Asked)

If Scott Brown is elected tomorrow in MA, and House Democrats refuse to pass the current Senate health bill, shelve it immediately, and move onto issues of economic growth, deficit reduction, and jobs with as much laser-like zeal as you and the Dems tackled health reform in 2009

Then if you are reelected in ‘12—which considering the GOP’s flaccid gang of contenders is pretty likely—revisit heath reform, and finish the job.

In the meantime, Congressional Republicans should be held to task by voters this November as to why they opposed a reform measure which—among other things—would have denied insurance carriers the ability to reject coverage for pre-existing conditions.