I have to take a break.

A couple of things have come up.  There is a thunderstorm brewing outside and it is not prudent to be on the net.  Also, I have acquired a hand condition called 'thumb arthritis.'  Normally, my medication would handle the discomfort, but, the pain is worse when I do a lot of typing.  I need to put a splint on my right hand and let the inflammation calm down.  I've been preparing this for a few hours.  I had surgery on my left hand in January and it has been markedly better with little to know pain at all, even now.  But, the right hand is a differeent story.  It has not had surgery and the arthritis is quite bad.

So, I'll finish this tomorrow night starting at 10:45 PM.  I can always comment on the news afterward and if necessary I can put entries in as they might be needed, but, 24 hours rest of my right hand is prudent.  There are about five more entries that are important to complete this dialogue.

Thank you for your understanding.

The best until then. 

As the majority author, Clarence Thomas exonerated 'generic drug manufacturers' from updating labels in regard to "Failure to Warn" requirements.

...When producers of products fail to warn of the dangers (click here) associated with the goods they produce, they should be held liable. Labeling on the product itself and written owners instructions must be clear and concise, and explain the dangers associated with the product, but it doesn’t stop there. Doctors are required to explain the risks associated with a treatment or procedure, that’s the law, but the manner in which the doctor conveys this warning and the way in which this is documented is left to the doctor’s discretion....

Why would a Supreme Court Justice do such a ridiculous thing?  Why would he and four other Justices 'lean' in favor of corporations over the citizen/consumer?  Why?  Why would generic manufacturers be allowed greater freedoms than brand name pharmaceutical manufacturers?

This ruling came after The Citizens United decision.

The fact of the matter is there is a limit that can be done with pharmaceuticals to benefit wellness and treatment when it comes to the human body.  These pharmaceutical manufacturers are not producing veterinary products that will expand their market.  There isn't much to do there.  So, with limited availability of discovering SAFE pharmaceuticals to BENEFIT the human condition, the largest manufacturers will be the generic drug manufacturers.  So why not deregulate all the laws FROM THE BENCH (activist judges on the Supreme Court) so they can continue to make profits over the protections required that might bite into their stockholders 'take?'

The new cures?  The new treatments?  Oh, yeah.  The USA is really behind the curve on this one.  It is called GENETIC MEDICINE.  Yep.  That is basically what remains as a future for the pharmaceutical industry, not new medications.

Remember the fuss not long ago about extending 'patent rights' beyond seven years.  How manufacturers were crying they were investing far more than they received in sales of their products?  Ah-huh.  You got it.  Big Pharm has a lot of patents ending in the next decade and they are panicked. 

So, the Activist Right Wing and Conservative Justices are scared for the profits they can throw to Wall Street in the near future.  That is why Clarence Thomas has victimized citizens from his seat on the Supreme Court accompanied by four of his peers from the Robert's Court.

Clarence Thomas, PLIVA v. Mensing, and the Plight of the Consumer  (click title to entry - thank you)

June 24, 2011

Steven Berk

Today the Supreme Court denied the 70 percent of Americans who take generic prescription drugs the right to sue those drug companies for failing to adequately warn of possible side effects. 

The Supreme Court denying consumers a day in court?  Never, never in a million years.  Sadly, it seems to be happening on just about a daily basis.  In yet another anti-consumer 5-to-4 decision, the conservative majority, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, sided with generic drug companies, shielding them from liability for failing to update their labels even in response to overwhelming evidence of side effects....

I suppose one could say that Big Pharma has more money and therefore more responsiblity in supplying necessary information to the consumer of medication.  By the way, this ruling directly effects every American that ever goes to the doctor and is given a perscription to fill, such as a child's ear ache in need of penicillan.  The information a consumer receives from the pharmacy in relation to generic drugs is now going to far less than brand name. 

Big Pharma is not selling 70% of the medications on the market, generic manufacturers are selling 70% of the medications, so this effects the entire population of the USA.  To believe Big Pharma can afford these warning laws when generic companies can't is nonsense.

Generic companies already get huge breaks in receiving production allowances of 20% in dosage strength of medication they manufacture and sell.  That is why some people do not do well with generic medication.  On occassion, especially with chronic illness such as heart disease related to muscle tone, generics sometimes deliver too little or too much medication to the patient.  It is why physicians occassionally will state patients can only take brand name formulations.  Their patients cannot toleratte the upto 20% change in dosage allowed with generics.

So, if generic pharmaceutical companies already are 'weighted' in favor of lower prices their profit margin is automatically higher and the fact they have the majority market, so that can't be it.  So, why does this Supreme Court favor generic manufacturers over brand name manufacturers.  After all, Brand Name Manufacturers have 'potential' for far higher income with discovery of new medications.  Wall Street.  Why would the four extremists and a conservative judge benefit generic manufacturers and victimize consumers after all the new medications will be far better than generics ever could be, right?

...Here we see that Glaxo winds up with a nearly 20% increase (click here) in sales over the next decade, while Bristol manages 10%, with a big drop as a result of the loss of Plavix patent around 2013 and 2014. What’s making Glaxo perform so well? I looked at Anderson’s product-by-product financial model for the British drug giant, and didn’t see any single drug driving the growth. The most important are Benlysta, the lupus drug made with Human Genome Sciences, and a replacement asthma drug, being developed with Theravance. The Theravance drug only really replaces sales lost as Advair, Glaxo’s big brand asthma inhaler, faces competition....

The next ten years of Wall Street investment will see many current drug patents expire.  Remember, as I mentioned before, not long ago there was a lot of talk about expanding patent rights and the drug manufacturers were moaning about how they never get a sincere return on their research dollars?  Well, this is a good part of the reason.  They are finding their patents ending and with it they become generic. 

The next large return on pharmaceuticals comes from generic manufacturers.  So, the Activist Right Wing Extremists of the Supreme Court along with the Conservative have decided to deregulate the pharamaceutical industry from the bench.  They have removed the safeguards to the citizen so Wall Street can reap the profits of generic manufacturing over the next decade. 

The economics of producing generic medications have nothing to do with it.  It is all about money.  It is all about the Plutocracy.  It isn't about the Constitution any more, it is about greed.

The "Sorrel Ruling" is also a result of the agenda of the Robert's Court now supported by the "Citizens United Decision."

All you knew (click title to entry - thank you) about prescription drugs were creepy ads in a JAMA at the doctor’s office with a lot of fine print. Even if you knew the name of a drug, you’d never ask your doctor for it because that would be self-diagnosing and cheeky for a patient. Flash forward to the late 1990s when direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertising, drug Web sites and online drug sales came on board, and self-diagnosing and demanding pills has become medicine-as-usual for the doctor/patient encounter....

The Citizens United decision was actively applied to the permission received from the Robert's Court in regard to invasion of privacy of citizens as it applies to their perscription use and to some extent their medication preferences.  The information was for marketing purposes and violates privacy laws. 

I never gave permission for my personal information to be used for marketing.  Quite the contrary, I fully expect my personal use of anything to be private and if I want to market it through surveys and the like, then it is mine to do.

The Sorrel Ruling was to benefit Big Pharma.  It is just that simple.  It is an agenda item of the Robert's Court, it is obvious and it hacks away at a citizen's privacy rights in favor of extending corporations' control over information to benefit itself.  The ruling places corporation interests AHEAD of citizen's privacy rights in a similar way the Citizen United decision assailed the citizen.

This information would not be available unless the privacy of an entire population was known.  The ability now to market and control information to patients and medication users is directly influenced by this decision.  It taints the doctor-patient relationship.  Patients and doctors are now aware of the influence of corporations in the information gathered and it can have an impact on the decisions and medications people use.  An increase in HIV medication in the country will not only send up red flags, but, will trigger awareness of such trends.  It will effect people in the work place as companies paying insurance costs for their employees will want to be aware of such trends.  This information will be used to demand higher insurance payments to companies and their employees. 

The Sorrel Ruling puts corporations on a higher plain than the citizen as did The Citizens United decision. 

The U.S. Supreme Court (click here)  has now ruled that a practice known as pharmaceutical data mining, the processing and sale of information about which doctor has prescribed which drugs, is “speech” protected under the first amendment...

Here again it is a matter of "Freedom of Speech" for corporations.  The next question is, can corporations require this information from physicians, of has the potential to increase their costs to their patients.  Patients will potentially be paying the marketing costs of Big Pharm through this ruling.  It is outrageous.  The Robert's Court is corrupt and the people of the USA are held hostage to this exploitation by obstructionist Republicans bought and paid for by the Citizens United decision.

The citizens of the USA are losing their freedoms, their jobs, their income, their unions and their homes to the Plutocrats.  The Citizens United decision came after the corrupt global economic collapse of 2008 providing more power to corporations and not less.  It handed 'citizen' standing to corporations while the Middle Class lost everything they owned.  Did this decision add jobs (which is not suppose to be a function of the Supreme Court anyway) ?

Before the ruling:

Pharmaceutical industry braces for more job losses (click here)

Linda A. Johnson

Associated Press

Sunday, April 6, 2008

...Since 2007, eight of the world's biggest drug makers have announced the elimination of more than 42,000 jobs; two other major companies have eliminated another 12,200 jobs in the last few years.
"There are a lot of things going on making this the perfect storm for the industry," said Argus Research health care analyst Martha Freitag. "My sense is maybe we're halfway through" the cost-cutting.
Today's struggles come after the industry's golden era in the 1990s, when a slew of new drugs quickly became blockbusters, fueling almost routine double-digit quarterly profit increases and rising stock prices and dividends....

After the ruling:

Pharma Job Cuts Are On The Rise Again (click here)

By Ed Silverman

August 4th, 2010

7:43 am

...As we have noted before, however, it remains possible the picture is even worse, because the report may not capture every lost job. Layoffs often occur in dribs and drabs, which means some job losses do not land on radar screens monitored by the media or state labor departments, which require notice when a certain number of jobs are to be eliminated. Moreover, this approach to layoffs will continue for the foreseeable future, so getting a true picture remains challenging. UPDATE: Merck, however, has disclosed to the New Jersey Department of Labor that another 90 jobs will soon be lost.

Who are the Plutocrats? The ones 'gaming' the system.

Charles (left) and David Koch have an anti-government, corportate-controlled agenda for the United States and have set up three Koch family foundations to achieve their goals. One of them is Americans for Prosperity, which helped produce the first Tea Party anti-government event on April 15, 2009.

It is all too obvious since Karl Rove has set up several money 'laudering' PACs that receive corporate monies to funnel them into 'influence peddling.'  The Tea Party and its success in such a short period of time is proof of that.  Has The Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Peace and Freedom Party, the National Socialist Party of the USA or The Workers World Party had such success and monies in their coffers?  Absolutely not, yet from before President Obama took his oath of office (which was botched by Roberts) these men have conspired to grown a political power that would dismantle the Middle Class and profit from it.  Yes, conspired.  Yes, laundering money. 

Are the monies political candidates using coming from donations from citizens these days?  No, there again is a corrupted Supreme Court that is dismanteling the Middle Class while allowing corporations to actually claim they have a personality.  Next they'll be claiming they have a pulse and respirate carbon dioxide just as citizens do.  They won't be polluting unless the federal government wants to regulate people that breath.  I am dead serious about this mess.

The US Supreme Court wiped out as much as 100 years of campaign financing law in one decision by the same five bozos.  The decision is 'weighted' to favor corporations over citizens.  The States need to legislate laws that benefit citizens and challenge this disaster of a Supreme Court.  To illustrate exactly the bias of the Robert's Court it is easily noted that the Citizen's United (these groups always have these inclusive patriotic names that anyone can pick them out in a crowd) case was given special priority in the public announcement of the decision.  It had to be done before it was anticipated.  That not only shows corruption of the court in 'playing to the media' but it also clearly illustrates the lack of proper demeanor of the court.  In other words, the Obama Oath to Office, the special attention to media releases are all inappropriate demeanors for the Supreme Court.  It is all corruption and disrespect of the citizen.  The Supreme Court is not removed from public discourse or media pressure, as a matter of fact it contributes to it.  That is grossly inappropriate and malpractice.  The ethics of the Robert's Court is very much in question.

As stated in the PBS video, the Citizen's United decision was considered important in that it supressed influences in the electorate and it was called censorship by Justice Kennedy.  In this decision 'the ability of the citizen' to compete with corporations for influence in political campaigns was never 'weighted.'  What I heard of this decision which was wisely written by the supposed new 'swing vote' of the Court since Justice O'Conner left; is that current campaign financing 'chills speech.'  That wasn't defined in the decsion as to what exactly constitutes 'chilled speech' when Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion.  What Justice Stevens stated was that the majoirty decision is a sledge hammer and not a scalpel of the First Admendment.  Yet, in the words of Justice Kennedy the 'chilled speech' was a concern.  If the Court had examined 'chilled speech' they would have noted citizens are 'the most burdened' with having their words heard over corporations with huge amounts of money to spend on paid advertising and investment into PACs..  "Chilled speech' hardly belongs to the wealthy so much as the Middle Class and Poor and the laws have to be 'weighted' in the favor of the lower income economic classes of the USA.

We know that money and wealth directly effect elections, therefore, it would be the average citizen that has their speech chilled and not corporations as Citizen's United would have everyone favor.  The decision is grossly corrupt and inappropriately decided.

Supreme Court: Campaign-finance limits violate free speech (click here)

The Supreme Court campaign finance ruling on Thursday means corporations can spend freely on political ads leading up to elections. The Thursday decision invalidates a part of 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law that sought to limit corporate influence....

The Robert's Court has an agenda.  It is obvious and it is dangerous to the citizen.  The Robert's Court is hacking away at the First Amendment.  I want to know when my computer is going to have more rights than I do, if it doesn't all ready, because it was manufactured by the Plutocracy?

The Federal EPA has not and is not enforcing the "Clean Water Act" in regard to Plutocratic exploitation of the public health favoring profits.

Coal Ash is a sincere and stark reality in the USA that needs NEW AND STRINGENT precedent regarding the dumping of these toxins.

Oh, yes, coal ash is very toxic, is known to be a hazard to human health and has been grossly inappropriately used as 'an agricultural additive' to soil as a supposed enhancement as a fertilizer.  The "Agricultural Amendment," as it is called, is grossly inappropriate for any farmer to use, but, without proper notice of the reality of the toxins involved in this so called fertilizer they are hardly to blame.

I sincerely believe the USA has not approached this reality simply because the demands for EPA Supersites would be enormous, costly and would include the nation's farmland.

CBS did a program on this mess.   It was well done and a link to an article about the topic can be found at the title to this entry.  CBS's video can be found on the web.  There is a link to it on You Tube.

...The problem is: (click title to entry - thank you) where do you put all that stuff? The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) dumped up to 1,000 tons of coal ash every day into a wet pond near the plant, slowly amassing a waste-cake 60 feet high. Some of the ingredients, according to the EPA, were arsenic, lead, mercury, selenium, cadmium and other toxic metals....

The problem is NOT where do you put the coal ash, it is how do you safeguard the public from toxins produced by an industry that does not address their responsibliites but relies on politicians to look the other way. 

Coal ash has to be classified by the federal EPA as a toxic substance and the 'where do you put it' will become very clear.  It will have to be handled as any other toxic substance, put in leak proof containment with preventions to protect ground water. 

The fact of the matter is with growing population and increased coal ash; to 'SECURE' the population from danger is a far better idea for the USA.  It is time to move away from coal powered plants that not only have to operate at lower burning temperatures to lessen emissions out of their smokestakes, but, also have to stop polluting the nation's water supply.  When the Clean Air Act stopped smokestake emissions to end lung disease and water pollution of particulates in the air such as actinium (which is radioactive), borium, arsenic and acid rain; the Clear Water Act never stopped the coal ash from being dumped everywhere imaginable.  The coal ash is unburned coal that contains all those toxins and more.

Power plants that burn fossil fuels are OUTDATED and UNNECESSARY and the nation has to make a commitment to the health of their people and the well being of future generations of Americans that will suffer because the Clean Water Act was not instituted regarding the dumping of coal ash and is not brought to bear when it comes to hydraulic fracturing.  It is time the EPA take on their responsibility rather than leaving it up to the states, the courts and underfunded conservation groups.  This is ridiculous.  This problem is ancient and it is the next Superfund challenge.

The problem that is manifesting in consumer litigation ...

... is that franchises delegate their responsibility to owners that simply don't carry them out.  In the case of Walmart, the 'individual store managers' didn't carry out federal regulations requiring 'equal treatment' of all candidates for a job when it came to their gender.

More and more companies are being exonerated from their corporate responsiblities of policing their local managers so long as they have a memo somewhere that states they abide by federal law and they have no control otherwise.

That is nonsense.  Corporations as large as Walmart should have in place a method to police their management to be sure their 'internal policies and regulations' are not 'conveniently' followed so much as completely followed.  Promotions should be tracked and employees should receive advances that deserve them.  Keeping track of employees that have proven assets that would reward the company's best outcome in management should be easily noted and followed by the corporate headquarters.  I am confident a scoring system could be explained to employees as to how they can move up the corporate ladder without discrimination.  None of these mechanisms are a burden, especially to a corporation with profit margins that are more than substantial. 

The federal government should be requiring corporations to report their advancement of women and minorities on a regular basis.  Every five years if not annually.  This would assist prevention of lawsuits rather than relying on them.

Corporations that are too big to fail are becoming, almost as though pre-meditated, "Too Big To Litigate." 

The Civil Rights Movement in the USA as we know it, began in 1948 and where it impacts Plutocrats and their money we are witnessing its end.

July 26 (click title to entry - thank you)

Truman signs Executive Order 9981, which states, "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin."

Walmart ruling a game-changer (article at title to entry - thank you)

It is fascinating to look across the media following this decision by the Supreme Court that completely victimizes women and employees in general.  Class Action for that matter.  "W" Bush absolutely hated class action suits.

The victimization of UNDERPAID with lack of opportunity based on gender is secured by this decision.

...The ruling will make it harder to get a court to approve or certify a class of plaintiffs who want to sue as a group, says Brian Fitzpatrick, an associate professor of law at Vanderbilt whose research includes class action litigation and federal law....

Even though the nine Justices agreed on the general premise that the 'class' did not meet the standard set by the citation of the plaintiffs, there were four Justices that saw a problem with the complete elimination of the 'class of women' bringing suit against the global economy destroyer.

...The court did divide 5 to 4 in deciding (click here) that the three plaintiffs in the case could not, under any circumstances, fairly represent the experiences of more than 1.5 million women across the company. According to the majority, women "held a multitude of different jobs, at different levels of Wal-Mart's hierarchy, for variable lengths of time, in 3,400 stores, sprinkled across 50 states, with a kaleidoscope of supervisors (male and female)." Therefore, this case presented exactly the opposite of a common policy that affected everyone the same way, precluding class treatment.

Ginsburg's partial dissent disagreed with one section of the majority's opinion, arguing that plaintiffs should have been given another chance to try to certify a class under stricter standards, but notably did not find that the plaintiffs could meet those standards, let alone that the majority's approach would jeopardize civil rights. And while dissenting opinions often call for congressional action, Ginsburg did not do so here....

The 'take home message' to most people I spoke with regarding this decision was that each woman was going to have to secure an attorney and sue the lousy company.  I don't believe that is necessarily the case, but, if that is the message then women will continue to be the victim of their gender.

For one person with the wages that are paid at Walmart to sue the company, they would have to have an income.  If a person/woman in this case sued their employer they would be fired, unless they were represented by a union.  Even then what would occur would be 'fault finding' by the employer until the 'employee file' was substantial enough to terminate their employment even to the standard held by unions of their members.  Without an income, the idea a person could sustain a lawsuit against any corporation is hideous. 

The decision is worrisome when another case during 'the Bush era' is noted.

There will be no single class action lawsuit against Merck's Vioxx, (click here) a federal judge has ruled. But U.S. District Court Judge Eldon Fallon left open the possibility that thousands of individual lawsuits against the pharmaceutical giant may be lumped into a series of class actions....

What then occurred was a number of individual lawsuits taken on by attorneys that handle medical lawsuits.  It was better for the lawyers, but, the plaintiffs were not always found to be dead or in poor health because of Vioxx.  Every case that was decided in any court in the land made headlines as a 'new way' to litigate class action for the benefit of companies.

To say there is an attack in the USA courts against class action lawsuits is an understatement.  The reason that would seem to be beneficial to the citizen is that decisions would benefit an individual more than a class action might.  However, the inability of plaintiffs to come together to file a single lawsuit and reduce their litigation costs only victimizes the innocent and prevents a real democracy from going forward with justice.

How does that interpret in civil justice?  It is concluded by many it is an oppression of the masses in a way that allows businesses to operate outside the laws that insure civil rights to all.

This continued assault is a Middle Class issue and eliminating the poor and middle class would definately benefit the plutocracy. 

Has the Supreme Court become so tainted with a Plutocratic Agenda it is an enemy to the citizens of the USA?

It is one thing entirely for the USA Supreme Court to make a ruling that assails Privacy Rights for the purpose of National Security and then have that information misused for political reasons or commercial reasons.  It is quite another thing to 'trend the law' to end Privacy Rights, especially in favor of commercial interests.  That is exactly what the USA Supreme Court did with several cases in recent years. 

The "San Francisco Chronicle" notes some of it here:

Calvin Coolidge (click title to entry - thank you) once said that the business of America is business. More recently, it's also been the chief business of the nation's highest court.
In class actions against Walmart and AT&T, damage suits against drug manufacturers and fraud suits against mutual funds, the Supreme Court's five-member conservative majority issued rulings that insulated corporations from claims by employees, consumers and shareholders.

And in cases involving freedom of expression, another major theme of the just-completed 2010-11 term, the winners included video game sellers in California, pharmaceutical companies in Vermont and privately financed political candidates in Arizona, some of them business-supported.
"This is probably the most pro-business term that there's been since the 1930s," said Erwin Chemerinsky, the law school dean at UC Irvine....

I don't care if there is a majority of decisions makers on the court that sees the USA consumer as less than a citizen when their privacy rights are concerned.  This is impeachable as it is moving the law away from potecting the citizen in favor of 'financial interests of companies' and that is the way I see it, as a citizen in the USA for all my life.  It is PROTECTIONIST court decisions and it abandons the rights of citizens.

The issue of the NRA is a separate entry.

In the article above it is stated by the US Chamber of Commerce that the court's record on business is mixed.  But, the voting of those that vote to favor the Plutocracy is not.  The decisions regarding 'immigration' when it comes to ILLEGAL business practices are very clear.  Illegal immigration has always benefited business as it keeps down labor costs, obstructs unions from doing business and holds down the average wage in the USA.  Any Supreme Court justice that would assail established immigration law to benefit dirt cheap labor would be easily impeachable.  The four "Republican Fringe Justices" consistently oppose the citizen and the one Conservative  Justice actually brings a 'thought process' to the decision making.  That is the radicalized Right Wing Court as it exists today and it is 'anti-citizen' in favor of profiteers and plutocrats. 

I thought economic policy was dominated by the legislature of the USA, not 'Lunatic Fringe Activist Judges from the Right Wing political party."

It is Fourth of July Night

Metallica (click title to entry - thank you) - ...And Justice for All (live Seattle, 1989)

Halls of Justice Painted Green
Money Talking
Power Wolves Beset Your Door
Hear Them Stalking
Soon You'll Please Their Appetite
They Devour
Hammer of Justice Crushes You
Overpower

The Ultimate in Vanity
Exploiting Their Supremacy
I Can't Believe the Things You Say
I Can't Believe
I Can't Believe the Price You Pay
Nothing Can Save You

Justice Is Lost
Justice Is Raped
Justice Is Gone
Pulling Your Strings
Justice Is Done
Seeking No Truth
Winning Is All
Find it So Grim
So True
So Real

Apathy Their Stepping Stone
So Unfeeling
Hidden Deep Animosity
So Deceiving
Through Your Eyes Their Light Burns
Hoping to Find
Inquisition Sinking You
With Prying Minds

The Ultimate in Vanity
Exploiting Their Supremacy
I Can't Believe the Things You Say
I Can't Believe
I Can't Believe the Price You Pay
Nothing Can Save You

Justice Is Lost
Justice Is Raped
Justice Is Gone
Pulling Your Strings
Justice Is Done
Seeking No Truth
Winning Is All
Find it So Grim
So True
So Real

Lady Justice Has Been Raped
Truth Assassin
Rolls of Red Tape Seal Your Lips
Now You're Done in
Their Money Tips Her Scales Again
Make Your Deal
Just What Is Truth? I Cannot Tell
Cannot Feel

The Ultimate in Vanity
Exploiting Their Supremacy
I Can't Believe the Things You Say
I Can't Believe
I Can't Believe the Price We Pay
Nothing Can Save Us

Justice Is Lost
Justice Is Raped
Justice Is Gone
Pulling Your Strings
Justice Is Done
Seeking No Truth
Winning Is All
Find it So Grim
So True
So Real
Seeking No Truth
Winning Is All
Find it So Grim
So True
So Real

In addition to damning people for their use of language, there is something sad about convicting a woman for smiling.

A woman is sometimes 'liked' because of her smile.  It is sometimes her charm.  Women smile for many reasons, including relief from pain or stress.  One can read all kinds of research regarding the power of 'the smile' from a physiological perspective and to believe people are using body language and smiling as a reason for commentary is quite astounding.  This isn't a game, she is fighting for her life.

For whatever it is worth, that smile looks very legitimate.  It is legal to smile.  Inmates in prison smile.

The change in facial expression by Casey during her trial is not at all unusual.  It is far easier to joke with a client than not.  It is better to be light-hearted when facing such extremes.  Sometimes there is no other way to approach such a harsh reality.  We, in the USA witness that 'humor' either dark humor or otherwise. 

But, when I heard to criticism in commentary by the media, I paid attention.

When the jury entered the room, the change in her facial expression reminded me of a woman and her lover when her husband walks in the room.  Follow?

I don't find any gravity to that weird idea, that guilt follows body language.  That's nonsense.  If it was that simple, the prosecution would have based their case on it.  That is a socail prejudice and nothing more.

The taped call from prison has a purpose? Other than invasion of privacy.

She says she is innocent and makes some very good statements to that effect.  I haven't followed this in the media.  Is that iconic to her guilt?  Because there is nothing there.  The word 'fucking' is suppose to make her guilty?  Since when?

The family is very, very disfunctional.  I sincerely believe the family was mounting a campaign to distract the authorities away from investing a greater truth. 

I can't take them seriously.  No one followed her to jail to support her though all this?  Why not?

Sorry, but, none of this makes sense to me.  They have a lost child and now an imprisoned mother and no one in the family, no boyfriend, no friend is at her side?  And.  No one knows the truth and is not at her side?  Wow.  That alone is an indication of dysfunction and a family that is not coping with their own reality in a way that makes sense.

I'll be honest, from this point on anything the family or friends have to offer in the way of 'evidence' is invalid.  They were not at her side the entire time and her own mother was indicting her in the media after her arrest.  There is something very wrong here.

In the statement Casey makes regarding the police investigation is fairly damning.  The police did or did not state to her that she would be held responsible for Cayle's disappearance and/or death if she did not tell them where the child was?  If that is true, that means she was being intimidated by the State to provide them with help in a way that is inappropriate.

I can understand how Casey would seek to reach out to someone, anyone that could find her bail or some relief from the reality she was facing.  That would be especially true if she felt trapped, violated by her family and alone and/or helpless.  That phone call doesn't mean anything to me in terms of Casey's guilt, it does mean something to me if a mother wanted to continue to look for her child or have authorities do so.

The only way a 'taped anything' would make a difference in a capital case is if there was a declaration of guilt witnessed in this manner and/or there was extensive evidence leading to the conviction revealed.  I am NOT hearing any of that.  I am hearing people 'opposing' each other in what 'the truth' is.  They aren't seeking the truth, they are violating each other's trust to try to find it or defend from it.

The defense attornys in the Anthony case aren't being difficult...

...in raising objections to the prosecution's remarks.  They are doing their job.  They have to raise these issues to be sure they have the basis they need to proceed in appeal.  There is a lot of ground for the defense attornies to cover in this case.  The jury may find her guilty, I am not sure how they are going to put that together in a demand of conscience vs desperate measures by the State, but, they well do that.  But, the defense attorneys have a lot of issues, from forensics to instrumentation to the gross inconsistencies across the board in prosecution testimony, etc.  So, they have to raise these objections to uphold their point of contention in the case.

The defense attorneys aren't showboating or being difficult.  They are doing what they have to do.

There is also the issue of 'electronic signature' in this matter.  It didn't matter who was on the computer when there was a 'casual' word search.  By casual I mean 'untrained.'  The word search could have been conductecd 'at anyone's request.'  In other words, if Mrs. Anthony was leaving the house and asked her daughter to seach issues of gardening and it lead to a search for curiosity that is not exactly what I would call pre-meditated content of a mind.  So, the 'idea' that a casual word search on a computer is admissible in court to convict for a capital crime is a bit worrisome. 

Electronic signatures when they are accompanied by identification and a secure internet is the making of some level of accuracy.  But, there is nothing to say any secure 'electronic signature' is that of the actual signatory.  The law has become enamored with the 'idea' of having electronic signatures as 'proof' of identity alone.  That is not GOOD practice at all.

If the carpet in your car stunk, would you clean it?

Carpet Cleaning (click title to entry - thank you) and other household cleaning supplies found in homes and schools can expose children and pets to multiple chemicals that are links to asthma, cancer and a host of other health problems and to dozens of other air contaminants that have never been tested for safety.

Lax labeling requirements mean that consumers don not have any idea what they are purchasing. Many would be alarmed to learn that a product like Comet Powder Cleanser releases more than a hundred air contaminants including chloroform, benzene, and formaldehyde. This is just one product many other contaminants that are found in many households.

 Below are some links to reports from Environmental working group that will help educate the consumer on making wise decisions. For Eco-friendly Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning tips go to www.greencleancare.com  or call 763-789-9600 for advice.

The Green Industry in the USA is perfectly aware of the bias they are accused of and seek to educate consumers to dispell that bais.

The answer is yes Green Carpet Cleaning Agents absolutely do work. The fact of the matter is there is a general perception among many  that Green Cleaning products don’t work as well. This is simply not true...

Given the fact that chloroform is a volite chemical, in the context it is used in the Athony tral, it evaporates (dissipates) with the introduction of clean air.  Yes?  Okay.  Then when would a 'volite' chemical of any kind NOT dissipate with the introduction of clean air?

If there was a concentration of chloroform gas in the tunk of a car, which is nearly impossible.  To begin, how does anyone trap a volite chemical in the trunk of any car?  Try and put oxygen, pure oxygen in the trunk of your car.  I dare you.  Go ahead.  Try it.

Okay?

It's impossible, isn't it?

The ONLY way a voltile chemical is gonig to stay in the trunk of a car is if it were RUBBED into the carpeting or APPLIED to the interior in some way which would explain ANY detection of chemicals in an OPEN AIR SPACE.  In additon, the inspection of the car took place in a yard where many other cars were placed for evidence.  There is air contamination everywhere.

The State isn't putting a good case together, at all.