The Republican hard core remains scary. This morning a local Atlanta radio station aired three sound bites from those attending Republican Senator Chambliss' "victory" party last night. Asked about Obama's victory, two different people stated that the election was "worse than 9/11 for this country." These two people are nuts. But the third said "this is the end of the United State as we know it." In large measure, we can only hope he is right.

As an attorney, I can tell you this video is moronic. The editorial text just doesn't match what Obama says.

First, the editor implies Obama's bias in favor of: "redistribution of wealth & economic justice in this society." The editor wants us to think that Obama supports redistribution of wealth because it is economically just. Wrong. Obama is saying that economic justice will bring about wealth redistribution. For example, if legislatures provided equitable funding for schools in economically distressed areas, or outlawed race based denials of credit, we would ultimatley see a fairer distribution of wealth. If Wall Street was regulated so it could not lie, cheat, and steal with impunity, the same might happen, maybe even faster.

Second, Obama says the Constitution is generally a negative statement of rights, not a positive statement of entitlement. He is correct. So, what's the problem here? Using the editor's same logic--that if you deny the existence of a right via the courts you support it via the legislature--I note that those who support the right to life say that the Constitution has no right of privacy, so that must mean they want the legislature to create one? The editor's logic is nuts.

Third, Obama says "redistributive change," not wealth redistribution. That's a legal, cultural, or societal change that results in a redistribution of wealth. See point one above. It does not mean that someone is coming to take your money.

Fourth, the editor says that Obama said that it is a tragedy that the Warren Court did not fundamentally alter the Constitution to redistribute wealth. As we like to say down here, flat-out, bald-face lie. OK, so we know the editor is a Republican. Actually, Obama said it was a tragedy that the civil rights movement did not embrace legislative changes which would create economic justice. Justice--that's a funny word, isn't it? Doesn't it mean a level playing field, not having bias, giving everyone what they deserve? In my 27 years as a trial attorney I have learned that it's a concept that congenital liars fully understand, but don't care because it is not in their monetary self interest.

Fifth, the editor again says that Obama says "redistributing wealth" can be done administratively. Wrong again. He says Courts are not equipped to handle tasks which have a large administrative element.

Sixth, of course it is not a conversation about whether wealth should be redistributed. Any fool can look at the numbers and see the racial inequality. Does that mean Barak is coming to your door with a colored regiment to take your money? Even John McCain would agree that a race-neutral distribution of wealth is optimal. Does this editor want blacks to be drastically poorer than whites forever? The only rational reason for wanting that is if you think it's fair because blacks are inherently inferior and deserve less.

Jesus Christ, just look at the obscene and growing disparity between the top 1% and the rest of the country. If you don't want things changed at Obama proposes, you must think that whatever you get from rigging the system you should keep, and you have a vested right to keep the system rigged.

The video is pathetic.

The borrowers did only what the market told them: I can get this house for that much money. Even the lenders did it: I can get this much commission for closing that sale. Why did the market operate this way? Multi-millionaires, now sipping martinis on their yachts, with all of their filthy lucre safely in Treasuries, lied and stole. A home buyer can't buy a mortgage if no one will sell it. Supply and demand. The false demand was created by credit default swaps and rating organizations which earned millions giving false AAA ratings on these ridiculous deals. So the liars and thieves are at the very top. They are the ones who should go to jail. The borrowers and brokers at the bottom just did what the market told them to do. But the market was rigged. For six years we all saw the buxom dancing lady on the right side of our Google search page telling us we could borrow $500,000 with no credit, no income, at 1.0% a year, for 120% of a home's value. Even people with no education in finance knew this was nuts. Where were the Bush appointees? Were they just looking at the dancing lady's tits? Or did they know that W's war and deficits could not be sustained without the hocus pocus?

The people in jail should be Wall Street crooks and the Bush syncophants who believe in capitalism and free markets as long as it operates to make the rich richer.

The last month has taught that "trickle down" economics never worked, unless you were the trickler, not the tricklee. But "trickle down" ethics apparantly works just fine. Learning well from the Current Occupant, our neighbors in this reddest of Georgia's congressional districts have acknowledged our Obama bumper stickers by tailgating, aggressively honking, giving the stare-down, and even flipping the finger to our 5th grade daughter. But our problem is now solved--our Obama magnet and bumper sticker were stolen last night while we attended a movie. The idea that breaking the law is OK if it advances your personal agenda is alive and well in our hometown.

Don't underestimate the Rethug Brownshirts. If they can peel off a bumper sticker in the dark of night, they will do it. If they can flip a few switches and steal an election, they will do that too.