Some belated advice to those who don't get it

I received another email reprinting a column written by conservative writer Marybeth Hicks back in October regarding the Occupy Wall Street protestors. I was going to respond to the sender of the email but, since she is an older relative, thought better of it and, instead will vent here. What is in italics is taken directly from the column followed by my responses.

There are some  crucial life lessons that the protesters' moms clearly have not passed  along. 

That free speech guarantees under the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the right to protest only apply to wealthy, conservatives?

No matter how you try to “level the playing field,” some people have better luck, skills, talents or connections that land them in better places. Some seem to have all the advantages in life but squander them, others play the modest hand they’re dealt and make up the difference in hard work and perseverance, and some find jobs on Wall Street and eventually buy houses in the Hamptons.

True, but the playing field has become disproportionately tilted to favor the few with talent who were fortunate enough to be born wealthy. Though I disagree with their political views, I deeply admire men like Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain. These were men who were born into poverty and through their own sweat and hard work reached places in their careers that their grand-parents couldn't have dreamed of. With the high costs of education and the increasingly closed doors to those without a college diploma, I wonder if they could have done that today. I don't think it is so horrible to make sure our children can afford the same opportunities.  “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.”

Nothing is “free.” Protesting with signs that seek “free” college degrees and “free” health care make you look like idiots, because colleges and hospitals don’t operate on rainbows and sunshine.

Come on, you know what they meant. They hear stories of a magical time where, if you were smart enough and worked hard, you received a taxpayer paid tuition-free education (or at a low cost). Now, they can spend $50,000 to $100,000 just to go a public university. Even CUNY, which was free 40 years ago, is closing in on $30,000 to pay for a four year degree. How many poor and working class young adults are being locked out from college due to costs? At a time when even low level blue collar jobs require some sort of skill set, we are dooming many to a life of working behind the counter at WalMart. Repeat this argument for taxpayer paid health care, similar to what Europeans and Canadians receive. But any talk of a similar single payer health insurance is fought like crazy. Profits for private and public corporations take precedence over the actual health of patients.

and the 53 percent of taxpaying Americans owe you neither a degree nor an annual physical.

Everybody pays taxes, just not all are wealthy enough to pay income taxes. You gotta make enough money to pay money. If paying more income taxes then those in the projects mean my children are better educated and safer then those without money and we are able to live in relative comfort with money left over for toys like a flat screen TV and go on vacation, then count me as one who is happy to pay taxes. Not that I love paying taxes but I consider that a worthy cost of success.

While I’m pointing out this obvious fact, here are a few other things that are not free: overtime for police officers 

Who told the cities they had to deploy such a huge police force (aside from their corporate masters) to deal with a few hundred protestors (higher on weekends)? Winter was coming, the protestors would have gone home soon enough. Don't want to spend so much on OT, don't over-react. 

and municipal workers, trash hauling, repairs to fixtures and property, condoms 

Condoms? Tax-payers were paying for condoms? Really? She had me with trash hauling and repairs to property, and, if she had mentioned it, lost business to store owners in the immediate area, partially caused by the NYPD over-reaction, but condoms? Sheesh. There were plenty of legitimate gripes and she says something silly like implying taxpayer supported sex? Sigh.

Real people with real dollars are underwriting your civic temper tantrum.

Again, if you are not conservative and anti-Obama the First Amendment does not apply.

Your word is your bond. When you demonstrate to eliminate student loan debt, you are advocating precisely the lack of integrity you decry in others. Loans are made based on solemn promises to repay them. 

Unless you are a bank or other financial institution deemed too big to fail of course. 

No one forces you to borrow money; you are free to choose educational pursuits that don’t require loans, or to seek technical or vocational training.

While I agree no one forced these kids to take out large student loans to study art, it is hard for them to pay those loans back if they can't find a job in any field where they can earn enough to pay back those loans. Kids coming out of college with small mortgages are going to be unable to move out of their parents' homes and spend money on cars, houses, electronic toys, restaurants etc for many years. In other words, money that could be spent on things that create jobs will be spent on paying back the banks and making a few rich. Yet, while banks and corporations can declare bankruptcy to get rid of debts they can never pay back, students can't (unless they are unable to work, so nice). So banks get money and those businesses who depend on consumers to spend money close or don't even open.

I equally blame college administrators for this for not helping to keep tuition costs lower. At least CUNY has, more or less, kept tuition fairly stable -- when adjusted for inflation, I was surprised to see the tuition I paid in the mid 1980s was roughly the same as the tuition being charged today.  

A protest is not a party. On Saturday in New York, while making a mad dash from my cab to the door of my hotel to avoid you, I saw what isn’t evident in the newsreel footage of your demonstrations: Most of you are doing this only for attention and fun.

Even soldiers on the battlefield get a little R&R now and then. And I've seen a lot of footage that showed somber protestors, at least at the start. Seriously though, by the end, I agree that it did seem as if things were getting out of hand. The OWS protestors made an error by not declaring victory sooner and moving things to the next level, which requires more organization and dealing with those in power like the Tea-Partiers were able to do. That is OWS protestors biggest failure.

I may not agree with all they have to say, but they are saying what needs to be said and debated on such as money in politics, Congresspeople get their own form of legal insider trading, the Glass-Stegall Act and corporate person hood to name a few. Even if you don't agree with them, the debate would be good for the country.

There are reasons you haven’t found jobs. The truth? Your tattooed necks, gauged ears, facial piercings and dirty dreadlocks are off-putting. Nonconformity for the sake of nonconformity isn’t a virtue.

I've seen plenty of well dressed, professional looking people among the OWS protestors. Kids had piercings and tattoos when I was in college over 20 years ago. All managed to hide them (or remove the piercings) for job interviews or at work, but happily displayed them when out on their own time. I imagine that is the same today. These kids aren't at work or on job interviews, they are on the street (or were on the street). A better reason for them not finding jobs: we've exported many of these starting jobs overseas, more experienced workers, laid off from their own jobs, are taking the remaining  entry jobs, older workers aren't retiring because they can't afford to and corporations stocking money in the bank instead of using it to expand.

Only 4 percent of college graduates are out of work. If you are among that 4 percent, find a mirror and face the problem. It’s not them. It’s you.

My company just had another round of layoffs. Those let go were not let go due to performance reasons, they were let go because a new guy is now heading our division and decided he needed to show that he could make our parent company more money so about 3% of the workforce, all college educated (and some beyond that) were told they have 30 days to find another position in the organization or they can call the out-placement firm. I'll be sure to tell them that it is their own fault that their paychecks interfered with a few receiving their end of the year bonus.

It's not just trickle down and income inequality

It would be nice if trickle down economics led to job growth here in America. Instead it has led to cuts in spending for infrastructure, such as roads, rails and schools, things American businesses need to succeed. At the same time, instead of investing in exporting goods and services, those at the top are using their money to export jobs and wealth to other countries.

President Obama pointed out trickle down has led to greater wealth inequality in a speech the other day. And of course, the GOP candidates attacked him for this (except for Texas Governor Rick Perry who wants to protect the majority Christians from acting like decent humans and being nice to those of other faiths), note that they can score entertainment points and continue to advocate that being ultra-conservative is all that this country needs. And the beat goes on.

Unfortunately, what neither side is pointing out, is that income inequality is a global phenomenon, not just an American one. Over 25 years ago, I took a few classes in labor studies as part of my major. I really can't recall much from those classes except for two things: the first being the professor pointing out that American unions became international to recruit workers in developing countries to bring their standard of living up to our middle class standard or they surely would bring ours down theirs.The second was marching on a picket line in solidarity with Eastern Airline pilots at LaGuardia Airport while the professor sang union songs on his guitar (which is not pertinent to this post but it was interesting). If that professor were still around (he died from cancer over two decades ago) he would probably be very sad to see how right he was. Globalization and technology have done what corporate bosses of the early 20th century weren't able to do.

Wages for the middle classes world wide will continue to decline as long as middle class workers continue to compete against one another. However, saying all workers should join international unions to better bargain is too simplistic and wasteful, some will always be able to get a better deal for themselves based on their skill set as well they should. But we need some sort of international floor where well paying jobs can't be shipped off to another country with skilled employees willing to work for pennies on the dollar, until their wages get too high and those jobs move elsewhere. While that may be good for corporations, it is not great for those left behind. 

However, creation of that floor is not going to happen tomorrow. It will be many years until those developing economies embrace the notion that the way to succeed is not to exploit the masses for the benefits of a few and allow real unions to form. And it will not solve the problems of those with low skills have in finding work, especially as that type of work gets automated. The only thing the lower and middle classes can do is to constantly improve their work skills, and hope they can afford to pay to do so. 

While life is better for many Americans than it was for others 50 years ago, such as gays, women and minorities, it has gotten worse more recently for most of us as the affects of the current conservative movement, begun in earnest as the progressive moment reached its peak, reaches its own peaks. While it is true that the average American income has been declining for many years, what we the people need to remember is this: while it is not just us, we do have the ability to turn things around. United we stand, divided we fall; divided we stand, united we fall. Either we the middle class continue to vote to raise taxes on ourselves to allow the rich to continue to exploit us, or we make our stand here and now. We're all in this together.

Censorship? #heblowsalot

I'm trying to decide whether the fuss over the Kansas teen tweeting, on her own time, that the governor sucks, and then being forced to apologize by her school, is authoritarian or, considering how the over reaction has played out, is amusing. I think I am leaning towards the former.

Was the the tweet potty mouthed? Perhaps, but I've heard worse on TV. Was it disrespectful? Perhaps as there are more mature ways to get your point across. Rude? I suppose if you consider respect for authority to be all-important. But I don't recall that the Constitution or Bill of Rights demanding respect for authority, quite the contrary actually.  Should the governor's office or school principal gotten involved to force her to apologize? NO!!!!! The First Amendment protects all citizens, including this blog, from being censored by the government and their representatives, which includes the governor's aide and the school principal. Both over reacted. Our Constitution guarantees free speech, even for 18-year-old girls who disagree with their governor. You may not like the way she said it but it was her right to say it.

On the other hand, there was a failure in that this student didn't know how to get her view across other than a short tweet. If anything, the school failed in using the tweet to demonstrate the proper way to articulate your gripes to a government official beyond saying "you suck" (I recall in 5th or 6th grade class projects where we wrote letters to various city officials). So instead of teaching the student how to write a letter explaining her position, the school gave her a lesson in censorship and constitutional violations at a time when many are beginning to question whether we have already given away too many rights our ancestors fought for. The US is not Chile or China after all. Worse, we're having a debate where those in government and media wonder if they should call for an apology because the way the complaint was phrased offended some. Brilliant.

No justice, no peace.

I think what bugs me most about the Solyndral solar panel "scandal" is that Republicans seem to be taking glee that an American company failed and that American jobs were lost, putting politics ahead of what is best for America. It's the economy stupids, which includes American jobs and attempts to let us become energy independent, or at least less reliant on other nations, so we can continue to be able to control our own destiny. The government tried to invest in an American company and failed. It's not like they squandered it on bankers' bonuses. But then the solar panel companies don't run the country.

There are those who believe that we the people are no longer owners of our own country and that those who do own the country, whoever "they" really are, spend billions of dollars every year lobbying their paid for Congress. The supporters of the pizza industry have money, so pizza gets declared a vegetable (the official reason, according to the GOP, is that the government shouldn't be telling children what to eat, no matter how bad it is to them and to our country). The supporters of the solar industry don't have the capital to buy politicians so instead they get buried by them. And yet the people don't question this, which is fine with those in power.

Those in power don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking pondering, for example, why there is such a strict crackdown on protestors, apparently coordinated by Homeland Security (you didn't think they would only go after international terrorists did you?),  and why the media seems to be in favor of this crackdown, noting every little thing that shows the movement is dying. They don't want a population that questions anything against their interests.

Income inequality is good as long as those in power get to keep the power and wealth and influence that allows them to tell politicians what to do. They are pissed that farmers, worried that an oil pipeline that could destroy the aquifer they need to for their livelihoods, had the audacity, to stop the pipeline, for now.  But those farmers shouldn't rest on their laurels.

Those in power  have shown that they will use violence against the people to protect those interests. You don't pay for a strong police force if you don't plan to use them to beat down the people after all.Watching the police crack down on the people with whatever excuse the politicians can come up with, and the media apparently taking their side, I have to wonder if we really are headed down towards fascism, gladly ignoring what is going on so we can play with our new tablet or iPhone. 

Too many in power seem to be happy that  honest hard-working people are fighting with those protesting for their rights, worried that the country is being stolen by a few. The media mocks these people as dreadlocked buffoons or spoiled rotten brats instead of those truly worried about where this country is headed. I guess it's only patriotic to protest when it is conservatives protesting against too much government, not control of the government by banks and Wall Street.

Those in power have convinced us that it is not ok to mortgage our kids' futures if it means higher taxes to pay the debts they left that funded their rise to power. It is ok to mortgage their futures, however, if it means they can't pay their college loans (student loans can't be dismissed in bankruptcy, the banks need to be paid after all). If you are one of these unemployed serfs, hoping to just work for free much less get a job that pays low wages that can't begin to pay your college debts and allow you live on your own, it is not ok to get mad about this, unless you are a conservative.

It is not in the best interest of those in power to have their college educated  slaves, stuck in dead end jobs they can't afford to leave, to be suddenly set free to become entrepreneurs and form the next Solyndral if their student loan debts are suddenly removed. Good talent that is cheap is hard to keep, unless that talent can't afford to leave due to loans and lack of health care, for example. Why aren't we concerned that the next Steve Jobs or Henry Ford will not be able to afford to build the next big thing in their garage? Whatever happened to supporting Americans who want to build a business and create jobs?

But I don't want to put the entire blame on those in charge. They can't get their message out without help. Fortunately, there are fewer and fewer independently owned media outlets, meaning that what is left can be easily influenced or bought thanks to a changing economic picture for the print media, whether it is through hired spokespersons or corporate owned newspapers.

For example, the media told us that those in power, who committed atrocities for years, needed the full force of the federal government to come to their aid within days when their gravy trains crashed under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity for the good of the nation, unless actual American jobs were saved. Yet they now ignore that tax dollars are being spent on tear gas to control the people or are being spent to create new weapons while they they barely question why politicians continue to demand that tax dollars not be spent on healthcare to heal.

This is the same media that is now not openly questioning politicians why they are practically celebrating the loss of American jobs. Why would they do that if they truly reported all that was fit to print? Could it be that they simply can't afford to offend those in power?

There is more going on here then we realize. No justice, no peace.

"But its against the law!"

Scores of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters were arrested on Wall Street this morning for breaking the law and clashing with police. I found these civil disobedience quotes on another site, which seem quite appropriate for today (not sure who actually collected these quotes).

• Dare to do things worthy of imprisonment if you mean to be of consequence. ~Juvenal
• Laws control the lesser man. Right conduct controls the greater one. ~Chinese Proverb
• Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it. ~Albert Einstein
• No radical change on the plane of history is possible without crime. ~Hermann Keyserling
• When leaders act contrary to conscience, we must act contrary to leaders. ~Veterans Fast for Life
• It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong. ~Voltaire
  If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. ~Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, 1849
• You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it. ~Malcolm X
• Human history begins with man's act of disobedience which is at the very same time the beginning of his freedom and development of his reason. ~Erich Fromm, Psychoanalysis and Religion
• Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may. ~Mark Twain
• Integrity has no need of rules. ~Albert Camus
  If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. ~Louis D. Brandeis
• Laws are only words written on paper, words that change on society's whim and are interpreted differently daily by politicians, lawyers, judges, and policemen. Anyone who believes that all laws should always be obeyed would have made a fine slave catcher. Anyone who believes that all laws are applied equally, despite race, religion, or economic status, is a fool. ~John J. Miller, And Hope to Die
• Disobedience, the rarest and most courageous of the virtues, is seldom distinguished from neglect, the laziest and commonest of the vices. ~George Bernard Shaw, Maxims for Revolutionists
  Every actual state is corrupt. Good men must not obey laws too well. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
• We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." ~Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Why We Can't Wait, 1963
• We cannot, by total reliance on law, escape the duty to judge right and wrong.... There are good laws and there are occasionally bad laws, and it conforms to the highest traditions of a free society to offer resistance to bad laws, and to disobey them. ~Alexander Bickel
• It is necessary to distinguish between the virtue and the vice of obedience. ~Lemuel K. Washburn, Is The Bible Worth Reading And Other Essays, 1911
• I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not so desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. ~Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 1849
• As long as the world shall last there will be wrongs, and if no man objected and no man rebelled, those wrongs would last forever. ~Clarence Darrow
• It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do. ~Edmund Burke, Second Speech on Conciliation, 1775
• I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. ~Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
• Ordinarily, a person leaving a courtroom with a conviction behind him would wear a somber face. But I left with a smile. I knew that I was a convicted criminal, but I was proud of my crime. ~Martin Luther King, Jr., March 22, 1956
• If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. ~Bishop Desmond Tutu
• It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. ~Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

There are those who believe that we the people are no longer owners of our own country and the only way to call attention to that is to break a few laws that have been set up to control the undesirables (guess those laws against the homeless had enough loopholes to apply to the middle class). Those people that those who do own the country, whoever "they" really are, spend billions of dollars every year lobbying their paid for Congress, so heavily influenced that they made pizza a vegetable, to get what they want, which is more for themselves and less for everybody else. They don't want their paid for politicians to get a whiff of public dissent or worse, to have the dissent spread and that one way to do this is to pass laws restricting the rights of the masses on the assumption that the masses will not challenge these restrictions because it is the law.

They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking pondering why there is such a strict crackdown on protestors, apparently coordinated by Homeland Security (you didn't think they would only go after international terrorists did you?),  and why the media seems to be in favor of this crackdown, that came without warning even as the start of winter was probably about to end protests in northern cities (or not, people in Maine are used to cold). They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. Investing in schools or infrastructure doesn't help their profit margins today.That is against their interests. And they have shown that they will use violence against the people to protect those interests.

Those people think they have discovered what they want and are trying to warn all of us that it is past time to wake up. They want obedient workers who are just educated enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but not so educated that they don't just passively accept the new new deal with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pensions.  Those are worried that they want the rest of our retirement money, attacking social security and medicare, so we will have to keep working.

Watching the police crack down on the people with whatever excuse the politicians can come up with. I have to wonder if  those people are correct and the increasingly violent crackdowns by law enforcement are because they are freaked that the OWS protestors will wake we the sheeple who will stop electing those who don't really care about good honest hard-working people. Are they  worried that those hard working people, sick of seeing wages stay stagnant while cost of living rises while they (usually those who control corporations, who are people too, and banks) destroy the environment while buying out our government and police forces to keep those people in line, are about to cause a problem?

Are they afraid that people will notice that tax dollars are being spent on tear gas to control while they and their politicians continue to demand that tax dollars not be spent on healthcare to heal? Are they worried that more middle class people may realize we have a growing income inequality gap that will come to fruition before they have finished dumbing down our education system?

And before someone calls me a liberal pinhead or something, let me state that I believe that the the Tea Party and the OWS movement are really both screaming the same message. Both see that the system we now have is falling apart. While they may disagree on subjects such as cutting spending on welfare and medical care they probably agree on many more areas of concern. Is it a coincidence that Tea Party supporters are saying they are nothing like the OWS protestors (I'm not talking about the Tea Party members themselves, but those who finance them). 99% of us are those people and the 1% keep hoping that we will be too busy fighting amongst ourselves to forget about them. Something about united we stand, divided we fall comes to mind.

We are the People. We the People are  in charge, not the businesses, not the politicians, but We. The. People. This should be, as the saying goes, self-evident.There is more going on here then we realize. No justice, no peace.

Medicare and the liars who want to lead us to the death panels

For 20 years I've been hearing politicians exclaiming that competition by private companies will lower health care costs and for 20 years my health care costs have risen. I have one thing to say to these politicians. Stop with the bull shitting already! The only prosperity a plan to replace Medicare with private insurance will be for the stock holders of the insurance companies while the average elderly American will undoubtedly watch their savings evaporate or, when they truly get ill, find themselves unable to obtain insurance (what company is really going to offer a policy to a 75 year old in a nursing home receiving dialysis three times a week unless they are forced to?) 

I don't expect social security and medicare to be present as is by time I need it in a quarter century, and I really don't mind having to work past 67 (if I am able), at least part time.  but I hate being outright lied to by pandering politicians who are probably in bed with the health care companies who have no problems with leaving the 99% to fight over sloppy seconds. As the last decade has shown, from the Enron rolling blackouts to the Wall Street mess, the corporatization of America and the magic invisible hand of capitalism doesn't always work well, unless you are at the very top of the heap and have an idiotic public who believes these lies, which we are. 

The chances for prosperity and freedom aren't supposed to only be for the 1%, they are supposed to be for all of us. And somewhere I like to think that means living an old age without having enough money to afford the premium cat food so I can still function somehow. Obama isn't bringing us death panels sheeple, it is the those who want to sell us a golden future of private health care that can be denied.

We can't afford no education

I just read an article in which a Columbia University professor defends today's high tuition sticker prices as false since college is much cheaper than people realize. I know part of my sticker shock is remembering what I and my parents paid for my CUNY tuition 25 years ago. I was very surprised when I entered my tuition from 1985 into an inflation calculator and saw that in 2011 dollars it was roughly the same. I don't know how public university tuition in other states compare, but there is no reason for students to be graduating from private universities with what is essentially a small mortgage that they will take years, if not decades to pay off (worse if they want to go to graduate, law or medical schools and incur more debt).

Tuition at many universities has been rising beyond the rate of inflation for a long time. However, the days of parents taking tuition out of their home equity have ended. Universities have forgotten they are in business to educate, not to create resort like dorms and pay for professors to do more research outside the classroom then time spent teaching students (research has its place, but it needs to be reasonable). While technology costs are higher now, it is time universities get back to the basics. Students aren't in college for a four year luxury vacation, they are there to work and prepare for their futures (parties on the weekends excluded of course).

There is something very wrong in that we are creating a generation that will be chained to jobs (if they can find them) and not take chances because they need to pay off their debts and can't afford to take a chance at a start-up that may not pay as much (or have health care but that is another story). One could even argue (put on your tin foiled hats if you have them), when taken to its logical conclusion, that we have enslaved our children's futures to private (even if publicly traded) financial entities, giving those entities ownership of the people and thereby ownership of a government that is by the people. Frightening thought, though if one looks at how much money is mixed into politics these days, it is not that far fetched.

We as a people are underfunding education at all levels (it seems as if many of the 101 courses are classes that were taught in high school as part of a public education a generation or two ago) and our children are paying the price. What this means for our country's financial future is anybody's guess but if talent can't rise to it's highest possible level because it can't afford to, then this country and its businesses are in a lot of trouble. Paraphrasing from President Franklin Roosevelt, the liberty of the people to pursue wealth and happiness will not be safe for the people if the cost to participate in the economy becomes stronger than the economy itself. Ownership of the people by those private powers holding the mortgage on the peoples' college degrees could, in its essence, lead to fascism.  

Poor Netflix

Netflix released their first earnings report since their disastrous plan to raise prices and essentially  lower service to predictable results, down nearly a million customers and the value of their stock down billions since the start of summer. The silly thing is that this was all self-inflicted. Netflix management acted like yet another pompous company (or CEO) who underestimated the intelligence of their customers and are paying for it. What's more interesting is many seem to be taking the company's actions seemingly personally (and I guess that could include me since I'm writing about it).

While people would have been upset with any price increase, a reasonable explanation (i.e. we are separating DVD and streaming to save on licensing fees, we are increasing prices due to rising costs in obtaining streaming rights, etc) would have at least been seen as somewhat logical. Instead, not only did the company raise prices, they told customers they were doing them a favor by charging the same price for streaming and DVD instead of making one service a bit cheaper as an add on to the other (ex: DVD or streaming for $11 and for just $5 more get the other service, in lieu of $8 for and $8 for streaming), forgetting people like a bargain. Worse, in doing so, they made it very easy for customers to not only cancel one version of the service, they also made it easier for them to look at competitors. Thanks to their moves the person who used to let the DVD sit on their TV for weeks while they watched streaming, is not very aware they don't watch enough movies a month on DVD to make it more economical then getting the latest movie from the Redbox stand at the supermarket (and to see what Amazon, Hulu or Apple have to compete with Netflix). 

If I, a normal consumer can see these issues, then one has to wonder what else I and their senior management have missed. And I'm sure not going to invest in a company where I perceive senior management to be less adapt than I in running their company.

In the meantime, we're having a great time streaming older TV shows from Netflix such as the Star Treks, Dr. Who, Family Guy and many other older TV shows no longer in reruns or we missed when they were first on.  Netflix is just an interchangeable service provider. When they die, we'll all just move onto the next provider (which I imagine will be the cable companies/internet providers at the end).

Wealth redistribution

NY Governor Cuomo continues to say no to a millionaire's tax in New York. The only thing I agree with him on this is that this inequality of wealth we have developed needs to be addressed on the national level or you really will have state warfare, to an extent -- a company needing the unique talents found in offices in youth centric cities such as NYC or SF isn't going to pull up stakes to move to the middle of nowhere where the talent is much thinner.

We need a strong middle class to have a strong economy and concentrating wealth among a few is not going to do the trick. How much longer are we to accept that stagnant wages, anemic job growth with tax breaks for the wealthy is best for the nation while there are cuts to services, infrastructure maintenance and education that directly affect businesses ability to compete (excluding Wall Street apparently)?  Why tax the super rich for this? As Jesse James (or one of the old-West bank robbers) once said, you rob banks because that is where the money is.

I know money equals political power, and part of that power is using your puppets to denounce those who speak for the masses, but sooner or later people are going to realize that pitting the middle class against one another is a lose lose situation. When that happens the top 1% better hope that they don't find out what many top one percenters have discovered in past civilizations when the masses got tired of being beat down and decided that, since increased taxes weren't an option, more violent means of wealth distribution would have to suffice.

9,9,9 = Doom, doom, doom for the middle class

Hello. Godfather's Pizza? I'd like to order your 9-9-9 special. Just kidding. Living in the New York City area I'd never waste my calories on such junk when there are many real pizza places in the immediate area offering far superior pizza then a glorified version of what I could get in my supermarket freezer (guess this makes me a pizza elitist).

I take back what I said the other day, about how it doesn't really matter whether a Democrat or Republican wins the next presidential election, aside from what goes on between consenting adults. I wish Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan was a pizza special but, instead, it is a special deal for the wealthy as it would provide a flat tax that would transfer even more of the tax burden from those who have money to those without. Simple tax plans for simple people who can't be bothered to research whether this revision to the tax code is in their best interests. But hey, at least those too poor to currently pay a federal income tax will be forced to pay -- those hippie freeloaders.

The flat tax is an idea that it has been floated primarily by incredibly rich men over the decades who would benefit greatly by it, which made me instantly suspicious of it. And upon further review my suspicions are correct. A flat tax would be a reverse Robin Hood, taking from the poor and middle class and giving to the rich. Social Security? Medicare? Fuhgeddaboutit once the payroll taxes that pay for those programs are gone. Hope his plan also calls for subsidies so the supermarkets can run specials on cat food in the future.

These flat taxers are no friends of the average American, unless that American wants to continue to slide out of the middle class and doom their uneducated children to living in a 2nd world economy of grinding poverty, with falling apart infrastructures, unable to compete in the global market. And those who defend it by noting that a consumption tax would force Americans to save and invest money in lieu of spending it, don't bother to explain how that will "help" the average American business already hurting by consumers spending less. That a man whose campaign promise to essentially hurt every poor and middle-class American, plus discriminate against Muslims just because they are Muslim, is currently the front runner speaks volumes about both the GOP (and perhaps the failure of our educational system in the "red states") and how out of touch the Democratic party is perceived to be by much of America.

Fortunately Cain is only today's flavor of the day. He will be gone from the front pages soon, like Perry, Gingrich and the rest. If the GOP wants the White House in 2012, Mitt Romney is their only hope. Every other candidate would force unmotivated Obama supporters to go to the polls to save what is left of their middle class lifestyles. Romney is somebody they could stay home on Election Day (or vote for) and live with.

Money, money, money

The Washington elite have sold out the Tea Partiers and Occupy Wall Streeters yet again. Nothing will change until we get money out of politics. However the Supreme Court has ruled that the financing of the First Amendment, sponsored and corrupted by ABC Corporation, by their finance masters does not allow this. Democrat. Republican. It doesn't matter, except one side is less interested in what goes on in your bedroom then the other. They're all beholden to their corporate masters and are barely hiding this anymore even though it is destroying the country by withholding investments in infrastructure and people (look at how much it costs to go to public university compared to just a generation again).

Any person who really wants to end this corporate financing of campaigns doesn't stand a chance under the current system. The corporate driven Supreme Court has basically twisted the Constitution into allowing those with fortunes to steal the country under the guise of free speech, ignoring that free speech that costs large sums of money to be heard is not really free. And then, when the little people, dare to call out the bankers and others who have essentially destroyed the country (and I'm not blasting the banking system or bankers in general, just those whose personal greed profited off of the misery of others), they are derided as slacking, dirty, un-American hippies. Meanwhile, mainstream media, usually owned by corporations, choose to not connect the dots between the corporate masters seeking to pit American against American as they deflect the blame from themselves while sending their minions out to discredit a movement that, frankly, speaks more for those who shop on Main Street over Wall Street.

A free nation can not remain free if money is all that matters. Inequality will harm us all. The sooner that We the People remember this and do something about it, the better. Unfortunately, that will not happen until change is difficult, as many of us older and educated victims are too busy just holding onto what we have, squirreling away every last dime for our children's education, no longer paid for by society, our retirement, also no longer paid for by society, or the inevitable layoff, which the elite say is so good for us that we don't need un-employment insurance, and by then it will probably too late.

People aren't mad at Democrats. They aren't mad at Republicans. They are mad at a system that concentrates the wealth to a few while assigning the risk to the many. They are upset with a system that rewards social greed by increasing inequality, rewarding the top 1% with 40% (or whatever number is being thrown around today) of the nation's wealth at the expense of individual freedoms and liberty, social justice and accountability by elected officials to the other 99%. They are mad at governments around the country who have cut muscle and bone out of higher education, raising tuition fees at public universities to levels that make it harder and harder for our youth to get the education that they will need to compete in the world economy and candidates for president who are apparently OK with this.

And they are furious at a system run by corporate agents, with favorable government policies legalized by those agents, that ignores the concerns of anybody without a fat checkbook that threatens to undermine the legacy created over 200 years ago that allowed all people (well, mostly white men, but that's another story) to live and prosper in what was once the freest and wealthiest nation on Earth.

Christie 2016?

After making the country wonder if he would announce his candidacy for the 2012 Presidential election or bow out the last few weeks, NJ Governor Chris Christie (R) has apparently decided he really meant what he said when he said he wouldn't run for President in 2012. Guess he decided it wasn't worth it to be the flavor of the week as the GOP continues to look for their true savior as the Governor, perhaps, begins to focus on 2016 (though as a NJ resident I'd be happy if he started focusing on getting rid of the party bosses and consolidating governmental services).

I think Gov. Christie would be a better candidate against President Obama in 2012 then any of the other GOP crop but he is probably too liberal for the Tea Party, despite his picking on teachers and essentially raising taxes on the middle class (me paying $100 for my son to play in the band is a tax increase by another name) while saving the rich from such horrors, to get the nomination this time around. Better to be the unknown potential for 2016 if the GOP loses the general election in 2012 over one of many losers who weren't conservative enough to get the nomination in 2012 I suppose.

While there is always a worry that you may miss your one chance (just ask all the Democrats who sat out 1992 when President Bush I's re-election looked certain), sometimes a politician's best move may be to sit an election out and let the extreme part of the party blow themselves up so you can come in and clean up the mess. The way the GOP is headed (and has been for many years) this may not be the worse of moves. If the Tea Party does blow up, Governor Christie will have four more years to get his political agenda aligned with the new political breeze and lose a few pounds to end the fat jokes (though I care more about a politicians abilities over his/her looks, many people are too shallow to acknowledge that the pretty, sweet talking politician is not the best leader -- and that is a bipartisan slap) as he saves the party from the Tea Party's science hating radical religious agenda.

Only a small part of the country is very liberal or very conservative. Most of us are in the middle, leaning one way or the other, potentially turned off/turned on by the extremes of one party. Governor Christie's best move may be to sit this one out, continue being a rising star in the GOP when the Tea Party implodes and hands Obama another 4 years, and get ready to welcome conservative spending leaning, but socially liberal science believing moderates, back to the big tent (no pun intended) in 2016.

Of course, the danger is that another moderate may be more appealing or some liberal Tea Party person may appear who both appeals to moderates in a general election but is still conservative enough to get the nomination or, if he gets the nomination, finds himself running against a more popular conservative Democrat governor in what I hope is improved economy (if the economy is still bad after 8 years of President Obama then forget about it for any Democratic candidate). A lot can happen in a few years. At the moment, Governor Christie is the interesting new kid on the block. In four years he may be Mitt Romney,who it seems has spent much of the last decade running for President.

One other concern: Does brash divisiveness work outside of NYC/NJ/Philadelphia? What plays well in Hoboken may not play well in Iowa, as Rudy Giuliani found out.

Don't run Christie

I have a selfish reason for not wanting to see Chris Christie, the governor of my state of NJ, run for President. His work isn't done here yet.

I lived in NYC in the 1980s and 90s. In 1989 I voted for David Dinkins (D) and his wonderful mosaic over Rudy Guiliani (R) to replace Ed Koch (a closet Republican) as mayor of New York. And while the mosaic was a laudable goal and the mayor a nice human being, I wised up enough by 1993 to realize the city needed some tough love and voted for Guiliani. This wasn't a vote against President Clinton, it was a vote against Mayor Dinkins and a vote for NYC's future. And while I didn't always agree with him, felt his tough talk and willingness to tackle the status quo were a big help in finally reforming NYC. I'm not sure what would have happened if he had left for higher office a few years later, when his star was already rising due to an improving NYC.

Fast forward to the last few years. Now I'm older, larger (side note: I have to admit that Governor Christie has inspired me to head to to the gym and drop 50 pounds this last year or so) and live in NJ. While I generally lean left, I voted for Chris Christie in 2009, despite my wife being a state worker, because I felt the state needed a new direction, even though this is proving to not have been in my family's best interests as our health care costs, among other things, are soon to rise as the state workforce gets what is essentially a salary reduction (I generally support this, the benefits were fun while they lasted). This wasn't a vote against President Obama (D), it was a vote against Governor Corzine (D) and a vote for NJ's future. And while I don't agree with all the Governor has done (aside from the teachers, I think he's been too tough on the average worker, not tough enough on the political bosses and their legal corruption and is probably more conservative than I like), I feel the state is moving in the right direction, away from its pay to play past. But we're not there yet and I worry the state will fall back into the mess it was without his bully pulpit (and it already seems whatever reform he was starting to accomplish has fallen by the wayside as he makes more speeches around the country).

That said, if you substitute Obama for Dinkins, I find myself looking at the 2012 presidential election the same way I looked at the 1993 mayoral election. The difference being I don't see one candidate who looks electable and that I would prefer over Obama (who is practically a closet Rockefeller Republican anyway). The current crop seem to be .22 caliber minds in a .357 Magnum world. And it is this that cause's me to worry -- not so much for the future of the country (unless one of the current candidates actually manages to defeat President Obama), but the future of my state.

It takes a long time to pull all the weeds from the garden and to make sure they don't come back. Just as I basically underwent a lifestyle change in diet and exercise to lose (and still losing) my weight and improve my health, it won't keep unless I stay with it. Letting things slide back to the way they were after just a few years won't be good for my health and, if the Governor were to be elected President, for my state's health.

Is Christie the answer for the GOP and for the country? Maybe. He seems more into what is bothering the average voter (it's the economy stupid, not whether you were nice to illegal immigrants once or are a gay soldier). But, fortunately for NJ (let me finish liberals), the country doesn't tend to vote for politicians like him (loud, fairly honest etc) to be President. Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman come to mind, but they got their first terms by being the VP when the President died. And then I have to wonder if running for President would show Christie to be more Koch brothers puff like Texas Gov. Rick Perry over substance like ... well almost any other Republican not currently running for President.

But, back to my initial point, NJ is still fragile. We've only had a few years of a leader telling us what we need to hear. We need a few more. As Governor Andrew Cuomo of NY, son of one of NY's most liberal governors, Mario Cuomo, has shown, this tough talk doesn't have to come from the right. Unfortunately NJ doesn't have anybody else, right or left, like Christie who will tell us what we need to hear (and I know he pulls some punches to suit his political needs). Hopefully the Governor realizes that what plays well in NJ, where our politics is somewhat descended from the NJ docks, plus Philadelphia and New York, may not play well across the nation.

PS - though some may read this post as my blasting Christie with some comments about his conservative friends, it should really be read as my blasting other NJ politicians.

The forgotten middle class

While the GOP concentrates on protecting the overburdened millionaires who create jobs in other countries and the Democrats concentrate on protecting the poor it seems that the middle class, who most of us are, are forgotten, aside from a demand they pay more taxes on our declining incomes so those on the top can continue to sip their drinks on their yachts in peace. So basically it is going be a decision between the lesser of two evils for the middle class come Election Day in 2012. Hmmm ... since the GOP seems more determined to push the middle class down to the the poor, guess I better vote Democratic.

Seriously, both parties are going to find out what class warfare really looks like if the educated and mature middle class gets pushed too far down and arranges for a less friendly and orderly method of income redistribution compared to the potential violent redistribution of income (and other possessions) that could occur. Push the middle class down with the lower classes and prove that there is no way out from the lower castes and there will be heck to pay for whoever is in charge at that time. Bribes work.

By bribe I don't mean welfare payments. I mean an economic system where those who work can afford to put a roof over their head, feed their family, afford some luxuries, educate their children and be secure in the knowledge that they can retire and not worry about going to the poorhouse -- aka the middle class. I'm also talking about an economic system where we invest in ourselves, through research and development and maintaining our infrastructure to allow the masses to go where ever their talents and skills can take them. A system where we stop pretending that the savings one earns by polluting the air and water is not a tax on the people down river. I think that is a position that most Americans, whether they are conservative or liberal, democrat or republican, minority or majority, NRA member or gun control advocate, etc. can get behind when all the political nonsense is stripped away (or at least I want to think we are mature enough to look after our best interests).

I'm talking a few extra bread crumbs from the pie, not a slice. You do that and most people won't care what Congress and Wall Street are up to. Let's face it, most of us, especially as we get older, just want a simple humdrum secure life. You don't want to piss off the majority.

Fire! Where is my fiddle?

Republicans are demanding that the Obama administration officials explain why they gave taxpayer dollars to a United States solar company even after the firm warned it was near collapse. Yes, heaven forbid we invest in ourselves. We should just let the free market export all these jobs overseas.

Enough with this partisan garbage. These are jobs going overseas and we're busy arguing over which individual is to blame when it was a very obvious bi-partisan team effort?? We have let a brand new industry slip away to allow other countries to take the lead in this field. What are we going to do about it? We can't keep this up. We're burning all our capital on stupid internal fights while our more nimble and organized competitors swoop in and take these companies and the jobs they create for themselves.

For decades the United States business community led in new innovations. This is no longer the case. Tax spending on research and development remains under attack in this age of austerity, while the expansion of old energy sources such as natural gas and coal are promoted, despite the unaccounted passed down costs these industries may do to the environment and our health. Our competitors have no problem investing tax dollars to subsidize companies to bring wealth to their nations. Yet, if one party even proposes to invest a few dollars on improving just infrastructure, there is screaming and yelling from the party out of power. So, aside from the loans in question, we basically chose not to help solar power companies on our shores and instead have decided to let China take the lead so they can export solar panels back to us.

These weren't just simple manufacturing jobs of interchangeable goods that could be done anywhere and, arguably, make sense to be done elsewhere due to vastly lower costs. These are skilled positions producing complicated materials that we are losing. How does not investing or producing anything help our workforce? Nothing is a sure bet, and perhaps the Obama administration chose poorly in supporting California solar panel manufacturer Solyndra, but at least they tried. For the good of the nation we can't just stand back and allow other nations who have no qualms in taking risks to help their own industries to surpass us while we fiddle.

This isn't the 19th century anymore. There is no Henry Ford building the next major game changer in his garage. And this isn't one state taking jobs from another state for "job growth." These are nations, our competitors, taking more wealth out of our pockets. We can help ourselves by investing in ourselves, yet our "leaders" continue this partisan nonsense while ignoring real external challenges to this nation (I'm not even going to get into the unconscionable debt we are requiring our children to accumulate just so they can get enough of a higher education, that taxpayers used to be happy to subsidize as a wise investment in tomorrow, to try to get these disappearing jobs). Some would call this treason.

So instead of wasting time and energy asking whether investing in local solar companies was the right move, how about asking ourselves why we are letting our country fall apart while we chose to ignore our external competition? Our competitors have their priorities straight. They know what to do when they see a fire. And while a fire can lead to renewal and rebirth, it can also lead to total destruction and annihilation. Why do we seem to want the later?

Oy vey! Why do people believe individuals can't think for themselves?

Oy vey. I just read an article by a "brilliant" writer lamenting that Jews are too liberal for their own good and vote liberal because they have to. Ha ha ha! The assumption about Jews falling in line and voting liberal because they are supposed to are as asinine as the comments people make about conservative African Americans. If you want to see a real debate don't watch the GOP on TV, come to a Oneg after services.

Some people can not ever realize that there are many people who don't just drink Kool Aid and can think for themselves. In my temple there are liberals and conservatives. In many congregations, we don't just blindly follow our rabbis. I can agree or disagree with mine as I feel is necessary. I can learn from him over Torah story and he can ask me to help him write the next Purimspiel with my own sarcastic bits (that came about after a recent board meeting where we were discussing the GOP field and, after I made a less than flattering mark about Perry praying for rain, I suggested that God was the ultimate prankster in sending fire to Texas while sending the rain to the Northeast).

Jews tend to be more liberal probably because we are big on education and generally, especially among the young, the more educated you are the more liberal you are. As far back as I can remember the question among my Jewish peers wasn't whether you were going to college but what college we wanted to go to (and this was in elementary school). Knowledge is power, even if that leads you to question what you were taught in religious school. Close mindedness and ignorance has led to disaster far too often.

I vote in what is best for my self interests and what I feel is my community, state or nation's self interest. Sometimes that means I vote Democratic, as I did in 2008 for Obama and then vote Republican as I did in 2009 for Gov. Christie (NJ). And while the increasing hostility to Jews (aka Israel) from the left is forcing me to take my own self interests into account, none of the potential GOP candidates for president who seem likely to get the nomination (Perry, Bachman and other Tea Party candidates), instill me with any confidence for a variety of reasons.

The "Kool Aid" writer would have done well in her lament that too many Jews are liberal, in her opinion, to note the anti-semtism from the left that is rampant on campuses. To me, it is frightening and will probably cause our children to vote for the GOP. Hopefully this liberalism from our children will free the GOP from those who cling to their guns (or whatever Obama said) and make the party once again a party that welcomes liberal minded people who just happen to also believe in a progressive small government that lives within its means while investing in the country's future.

Finally just because I am liberal on some things doesn't mean I don't have more traditional family and fiscal values in my home. As our children can attest, it may be 2011 outside, but it is 1971 in our home (though with internet and video games).

The middle class is for liberal pansy pinheads

Proctor and Gamble has decided it is too much of a gamble to continue creating and marketing goods to America's disappearing middle class.

You want to look for someone to blame for the disappearing middle class America? Look in the mirror America. No one forced you to vote against your own best interests for the conservatives that have spent the last 40 years convincing the American worker that unions, which gave us the 35 hour week, health benefits, vacations, work safety rules etc are bad for the average worker so corporations can make more money and create jobs overseas. You let your bigotry, hate of education and love of ignorance, praying that a possibly non existent deity would take care of you over a "liberal" government that actually would provide health, education, social security and clean air to destroy what was good for you. Congratulations. Your "brilliance" will be one for the history books.

And before you get too smug upper class, you might want to remember that many of the liberal income redistribution programs through taxation came about to prevent a more violent and immediate income redistribution program by the greatly larger lower and middle classes.

Pro bono work and justice

The NY Times has an editorial today addressing the gap between the thousands of law school graduates who need work and the many poor people who can't afford legal assistance while also recommending changes in the way pro bono work is reported for experienced attorneys. The editorial misses a few points.

First, they estimate that there are 15,000 lawyers from the last graduating class who are doing work that doesn't require a law degree that could be helping low-income clients. Assuming that 15,000 is could afford to work for free for a long period of time, the Times fails to consider how many of those 15,000 had no intention of practicing and aren't looking for a job that required a law degree (however that is defined) and are happy to use the skills they picked up in law school in the corporate world doing other work? For example, my employer paid for my law degree (a long time ago when tuition was much less) with the assumption that I would use my law degree for them not as a licensed attorney, which I am, but for related work. Not everyone goes to law school with plans to represent individuals in day to day court activities. Many of us always planned to work in the business world using our law degree in some capacity that may not even require us to be a licensed attorney.

Second, while I was probably more knowledgeable of criminal procedure laws back when I graduated, there was no way I would have been qualified to represent, without assistance from a more experienced attorney, a defendant appropriately. While I may have known the laws, I did not know proper procedures and what to do or who to call to accomplish what needed to be accomplished. Those are skills gained by experience outside the class.

Third, the Times is correct when they say a loan forgiveness program is essential to counter the lower pay a public interest attorney earns. My wife, was a public interest attorney for a few years, if she wasn't living with me she would have had to live with her mother on her salary. With today's higher tuition that would be more true today.

Finally, as to pro bono, the work I am currently engaged in (transactional work) probably wouldn't apply to those who would need help. Again, while I know the law, I probably don't know the right laws and would be lost in the courthouse and would do more harm then good. Pro bono work that I have done in the past has been more along the lines of helping a non-profit create a database of laws, part of my skills set. My court advocacy skills are quite rusty now (use it or lose it).

There seems to be an assumption that just because an attorney is licensed to practice law that they can just take on any case. That is not true. If for example, the judge at my local courthouse called me in to represent a criminal defendant, I could do more harm then good as I have not looked at criminal law since I was in law school. I don't know the current law and, while I could research it and get myself up to date, my knowledge of what to file and when to file is also out of date. Aside from jury duty, I haven't been in court since law school.

Well paid (or at least paid enough for a middle class living and loan forgiveness) public assistance attorneys, who specialize in this law and with an appropriate case load, is the way to go if you want justice. You just can't pull any old attorney off the street, tell an indigent client he/she is now represented and leave satisfied that justice will be done. My work is transactional, corporate at that, so while I really wouldn't mind helping an individual, and have even applied to a local legal aid society (they had plenty of younger attorneys who could work more hours and were more up to date on the issues regarding their clients needs) I would at this point in my career do more harm then good.

Even if, as part of pro bono requirements, I was required to take domestic relations or criminal law classes, as a lawyer who is not in the courtroom on a regular basis, that might give me just enough knowledge to be dangerous -- knowledge of the law and court procedures, but not enough knowledge to know how to properly negotiate and get my client justice. Three years in prison for car theft with your buddy? Sounds good to me, but an experienced attorney in this area might know to take other considerations into account (first time offender, didn't know the buddy had stolen the car) and argue that the proper penalty is probation. Same for a different fact pattern in family court with child custody or abuse. Proper advocacy is not something you can do once every few years, like any skill if you don't use it, you lose it.

I don't know what the solution is. It is unjust that the poor can not afford justice, but that has been the way it has been for many years. Legal Aid programs are constantly underfunded and society shows no interest in reversing that (aka higher taxes). Defendants like DSK can afford the attorny who will get him justice but there are plenty of DSKs without that access.

And pro bono alone is not the answer. There are many attorneys like me, not knowledge in areas of law that could help low income clients. But those who are knowledgeable in those areas make far less money and may be fighting for every dime in these low cost/high volume cases (and I am far from wealthy myself, I make less then many people with just a BA but work in the financial field -- can we please kill the myth that all attorneys make $160k, that is the case only for a relative few). It is unfair to place entire burden on the general sole practitioner who could help pro bono clients but make little money and can't afford to sacrifice. And to force young attorneys who are just trying to keep a roof over their heads and loan payments current seems equally unfair.