The facts of my life are mostly good, so why should I be bitter? But p***ed off? Absolutely.

The political system grows daily further from the people. The importance of big money, the two-party system, a corporate media indifferent to all concerns but those of elites, the power of lobbyists, journalists who have no interests beyond the latest gossip and little knowledge of real issues, all conspire to make politics a function of elite interests, values and worldview. Indeed, I would argue that that's the point of the whole exercise - to insulate politics from the people. And the candidates are part of the system, so it follows that they carry the water for their superiors. You don't get to be a major presidential contender by bucking the system, which in practice means fealty to the liege lord, not the peasantry.

So while media stars like Gibson and Stephanopolous (sp?) ask insipid, demeaning questions in the latest "debate," neither Clinton nor Obama, if either gets elected, is going to make a whit's difference in the lot of common people. Bring the troops home? Don't you believe it. Cut defense spending so we can fund other worthwhile initiatives? Not even discussed. Single-payer health care? Nope. A reasonable policy toward Israel and Palestinians. Not that either.

I could go on indefinitely, but won't. The point is that politics in America is a sham - a pretense of relevance to the lives of ordinary Americans. So is it any surprise that the candidates show no familiarity whatsoever about what matters to most Americans? Is it shocking that the only question of importance in the "debate" involved the capital gains tax at a time when most people have seen their homes decline in value by half? No, it is neither shocking nor surprising; it's predictable as the sunrise. The system is of elites, by elites and for elites. Understand that, and nothing that happens is a surprise.

Does that make me bitter? You tell me.

then obviously productivity gains are good things, and the more the better. But increased productivity can be bad for a capitalist economic system if it's too great.

When asked why increased productivity is a good thing, economists answer that it's because it allows management to raise wages without also raising prices. But of course, management doesn't unilaterally raise wages because to do so would put Firm A at a competitive disadvantage with Firm B. The failure to raise wages coupled with increased productivity results in increased inventories of unsold goods which results in lower prices and lower wages which exacerbate the problem of unsold inventories.

That's exactly what happened in the Great Depression which followed directly on the heels of the 1920s which is still the decade of greatest productivity growth (5.3%/year average) in U.S. history.

read Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. Although published in the early 60s, it is entirely relevant today. A large portion of the U.S. population falls into the anti-intellectual category and politicians, whether they personally do or not, must appeal to those voters. That's why so many presidential candidates said they didn't believe in evolution and it explains the mistrust of experts which this congressman exhibits.

who will win most of the big states. Whoever the Dem is will win CA, NY, NJ, IL and probably PA and MI. The Rep will win TX. That leaves FL and OH up for grabs. Clinton's argument is ridiculous.

was disgraceful and Congress should overturn it ASAP. I'm surprised it hasn't already done so. (More Nancy Pelosi leadership?) It requires employees to do the impossible (know about discrimination without any evidence of it), encourages employers to lie and conceal information and of course it drastically restricts an employee's right to redress grievances. I would argue that it violates the right of due process of law too, but I don't know if the opinion deals with that.

What puzzles me though is Broadsheet's characterization of the Ledbetter decision as uniquely affecting women. It doesn't. It affects all employees who may have a claim of sex discrimination, and my guess is all those with any claim of discrimination whether it's based on sex, age, race, religion or whatever. So why pretend this is strictly a woman's issue? If Broadsheet truly opposes the Ledbetter decision, why not recruit as many people as possible to the cause?

Yes, you're right about Harry Reid. I was just being my usual snarky self when it comes to the Dems.

My main point though was not that this is not a woman's issue but that it is not only a woman's issue. It specifically applies to sex discrimination and as such affects anyone who would want to bring such a suit. Moreover, although it is specifically a sex discrimination suit, its reasoning can be applied to suits alleging any form of employment discrimination. If that's how this court views sex discrimination claims, why wouldn't it view race or age claims the same way? So Broadsheet's appeal to women is too narrow. As I said, if they truly oppose this ruling, why not appeal to as broad a group as possible?

with the "flood of litigation" claim is that it just won't happen. How do I know? Because the rule, up until the Ledbetter decision, was that the statute of limitations didn't start running until the claimant knew of the discrimination. In other words, the old rule, in place for decades, is what people with any sense want to return to. There wasn't a "flood of litigation" before Ledbetter and there won't be one after the rule is changed to what it used to be. The argument is a red herring.