chuck kottke

Yes, I agree! It's pure crony-ism at it's worst, that's for sure!! Too many seats are secured against the best interests of the citizenry, and yet so often many citizens vote irrationally, maybe out of fear, or holding on to the belief that somehow things will change in that candidate's nature once in office? Our state has had a fair share of Democrats as well as Republicans found guilty of ethics violations, but it's usually some very minor things (using staff and staff-time to help with campaigns), all the while the big crimes go unnoticed. Actually, I think the whole thing right now is an unethical racket, and those little violations were just some superficial effort to cover up the larger, more destructive corruption in the whole process. A dog-and-pony show for the public, so nobody looks deeper at the kickback system. I've never voted just for the party designation, as often that's a false front to their true voting record.. And I have voted for third-party candidates in the past, though very few of them end up winning, or even get on the ballot! So, I would like to see all the candidate races run on merit and true representation. I voted for Nader in 2000, and while some of my Democratic friends get angry to even hear that, I think then that if they wanted those of us who voted for a more honest candidate and reform of the system, then they needed to win our votes, not just take them for granted! Even if Third Parties never get to the White House, or State House, they have always been powerful movements in our history, and have changed the outcomes in the nation as populist movements that were better for the country, at a time when lethargy and complacency had set into the major parties. So, I always consider the third-party candidates, because I know there are times when neither major party offers real change. Yes, that's so true - the bail-out bill was, as most bills passed under "emergency" times, loaded with pork, and does not address the underlying problem of corruption that leads to financial houses of cards.

Peter Gabriel - Salisbury Hill

I thought it fascinating to hear how Nobel Laureates in Physics and Mathematics cooked up the derivatives "market" scheme, sold it to Wall-Street, and in part because they couldn't factor in human nature into their equations, what resulted is why the markets are taking such a beating.. And where's my golden parachute when I need it??:laugh3:

Actually, the Bakery is not that at all - it's actually a time portal to another dimension; one without the full color spectrum, as they used that up on the outside of the building!

:rolleyes::laugh3: 1. Winston Churchill was right about this country. 2. Nobel laureate Physicists + Nobel Laureate Mathematicians + Derivative Gambling Markets + Major Investment Firms' Top Brass + Sub-prime Loans sold as Grade A Stock = Major Market Plunges 3. Kickbacks to Politicians from above = Zero Regulation! 4. Time for Reform for candidate races - no big contributions; no end game. period. 5. Funny the price of gold hasn't shot up more? Why is that??

Thanks! And although it might be unusual in ordinary circumstances, when times are tough, people wake up and look for the real, and seek answers. Maybe not everyone, but a significant number will, and perhaps more common pressure can be put to bear on changing both the process and the court, so as to get statesmen into office, rather than the usual politicians. One good outcome of a bad situation - there is turn-over in offices, and it's often a good time for reform candidates & their issues to become more salient, and to take center stage. I'll keep writing those few I trust to put forth real reform legislation, and I would recommend that everyone else do the same - lest the good ship Liberty go down by the deteriorating forces that have corrupted this ship's hull thus far. The candidates know what we want, and they speak to it; but they will only act if we demand it of them, and change the process to promote those higher ideals as a ticket to success. I have to believe we can do it, if for no other reason than we have managed far greater feats against the odds in the past.

Hello to Bjorn from Sundsvall, Sweden! Glad you could join in, and keep enjoying the guitar and piano - I dabble on piano as well, and find it to be great fun to come up with new sounds. By guitar, do you mean acoustic or electric?

Hello Sophia! Welcome aboard and enjoy the company!!

Well, given what has already transpired (a rigged election in 2000; the Supreme Court violating the Constitution and basically appointing Bush as President), I think it's something he would try if he could. But at this point it seems unlikely, as he's already tarred with the mess we're in today - his approval ratings are low, and sinking fast..

Thanks for the input, Jay!;) The idea of government working within their projected revenue budget would be good, although there are those who argue that when the economy is in recession, the government boosts the economy by spending more and holding a deficit to get the economy going, and then gets replenished with the surplus during subsequent strong economic years. What sayest thou to that? I like the idea, though.. It's a little more than ridiculous to have such a bloated defense budget as we have, and yes I agree - Europeans don't need our military within their borders as they rebuild their native defenses. They could just as well patrol the Gulf, as the oil is headed mostly to Europe and Asia(?).. With roughly 50% of our budget going to defense, that's a heavy burden on taxpayers. Plus, I've begun to believe what someone once mentioned to me - if you have a strong military, the temptation to use it is too easy as a solution to every problem.. I'm favoring a 'only related items per bill' law over a line-item veto. Otherwise, the President would have powers to pick and choose parts of a bill, leading to more of "Kingship", and less of "Citizenship" in the office of the President. Although, Congress could make bills that have only one main purposes, and then the line-item would be un-necessary. Kagen says the government would grind to a halt if we have only 1-item per bill, but that might not be all bad either.:laugh3:. Perhaps a citizen's oversight board to determine if bill items are related..? I'm in favor of more power going to the citizens, as I think since jurists take their roles seriously, so might a citizens' board..:cool:

mend All blame aside, the process is the problem. It's the Mac Beth effect, so-to-speak that's at the heart of the matter, in my mind. Honest government is possible, but we need to open up the process for more participants, and more honest participants, by taking as much of the excesses of legalized bribes out of the political process that we can. I've written a letter, which I am sending to my representatives asking for reform - and anyone can do the same - at the times we are in, the pressure applied on reform would have greater salience than at any other time in recent history, save for Nixon's corrupt administration. Here's the gist of it, for anyone interested: Constructive comments welcome! Reform List for 2008 and beyond: 1. Limit congressional terms to 18 years max. (too much? too little?) (giving enough time for a representative to be in office and become acquainted with government, but not a power hog on key committee seats) 2. Make both the House and the Senate 6-year terms (giving more stabilizing time for House members between races, so the office is more important than constant contests) 3. Cap the maximum allowable donation for individuals to a candidate's race, limited to 2/365th of the median income (in essence, 2 days pay, all days being equal, which would come to around $260 tops). Same cap applies to party fund raising (in essence to make campaigns and parties responsive to the needs of the whole nation/state/district/world, rather than the desires of a few for special treatment 4. Only real people can donate. No donations from corporations, unions, wall-street firms, law firms, etc. 5. Equal, substantial, and free access for all viable candidates on the broadcast networks, including radio & TV time. This is in return for broadcaster's privileged use of the airwaves - our public commons. 6. No outside money allowed. Meaning only district residents can donate to campaigns within that district, for offices representing that district. 7. No direct paid endorsements on TV or radio by groups other than the candidate's election committee. 8. Groups or individuals can advocate for a point-of-view all they want for an issue on TV and radio, but they cannot mention the candidates, their names, faces, etc. within their paid advertisements. 9. No revolving door. Officeholders leaving office cannot work for or be influenced through incentives by organizations for which they were overseeing while in office. No more business-as-usual. 10. No staffing of agencies with individuals from companies or groups normally regulated by that agency. 11. Limit the power of the Presidency to only those powers delegated to the office in the US Constitution. No more signing statements, no more executive privileges.

Qh why so worried, grids???

I'll have to check it out - still listening to some of their most recent concerts..

Today was a foraging day.. (mostly because the stores I go to are closed:P). So, I made some highbush cranberry sauce (from an expedition into the swamp), and home-made baked beans, cooked on the wood stove. Lots of nannyberries and aronia berries - good as trail mix.

Life is a self-perpetuating device, a set of the right chemical elements in just the right combination and orientation to keep on creating new cells which are almost identical copies of the original, but by random mutation (or perhaps in some instances deliberate mutation), and selection, may include a certain level of diverse types, such that in any given population of organisms there exists members which may prove advantageous for survival, especially if conditions change, which always happens, but to varying degrees and varying speeds. The point of life is successful gathering of energy from the environment in which that organism exists, the use of water and nutrients to grow, and then to replicate, or reproduce with exceedingly good accuracy faithful to the original. The point of human life could take volumes, and besides the evolution of cells and multi-cellular organisms, there exists cultural evolutions, intellectual evolutions, musical evolutions, and perhaps even the ability to control biological evolution itself - quite a twist on the possibilities! Personally, I favor gene repair, because as well all know, why toss out a perfectly good pair of genes, when all that's needed is a little mending. Why do we see in color, and why do we see in so many colors?

Well, I for one think they need to do a concert in Antarctica! Now those poor souls get neglected!! And maybe a Pacific Rim tour - covering the waterfront and volcanic spots on the globe... Plus, those peoples in mother Russia would love to see them, and since the Beatles went there, it's a definite must.

I am thinking --- why do some people, the infamous Karl Rove's of the world, run mis-information campaigns? Lies packaged to pretend to be the truth, and aimed at our emotional reflexes? Rather, I understand their motives, but yet, were they not taught right from wrong at a young age? Did they lean how to deceive others for advancement when they were little?? Or,is it all such a game they get caught up in, and they, like MacBeth, forget their moorings?? Is it all like John Lovitt's "Pathological Liar" skit come to life??

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100204115.html?nav=email Claims that it's the fault of those borrowers of subprime loans is beginning to look a litte less credible in my mind..

I just think... Cast your lot with those who believe and stand for the separation of Church and State, and the Marketplace of Religion! & lest we have another pres. who thinks god whispers in his ears, and who's values only extend to those within a narrow comfort range, think carefully before choosing. I've seen Sarah Palin's "exorcism", and that was freaky enough!:P

Hmm.. well, then it looks like the left is split this time? And loud can be OK if they do what's right for the country. Jack Layton - I do listen to CBC on occasion, so I know of him. But I know what you mean - loud people are just so rude! So what's wrong with Dion? Sounds like fine mustard, no? And the Greens here have one as well - I like their candidate (McKinney), but it's a long long long shot, which I may actually vote for if the race isn't close. Somebody May something-or-other - well, maybe that's your candidate then?? If Harper looks like a landslide, then perhaps vote for the one who best represents your interests(?) And since your system is unlike ours, how does that play out? Is this for Prime Minister then, and how does the Canadian Gov't. share power?? I knew Helen Harper, and Harper's lake out our way - any relation?? - just kidding!

Jay, I understand what you are saying - and perhaps that route would work - lawsuits vs. regulation and oversight; but I thought about that as well, and I'm wondering - it's an after-the-fact thing to go the lawsuit route. The Judiciary would have to be expanded, and the Congress still appoints the Justices.. Plus, the odds of winning a case, and the cost of trying to go that route makes it an option only for those who can afford it and who are driven enough to try it. I know regulation can be misguided, mis-interpreted (just like certain judges mis-interpret the Constitution - as a so-called "liberal" interpretation to give them all sorts of unintended leeway), or hijacked and used as a tool to further a political agenda. Sometimes, even the Bureaucracy can become a self-perpetuating monster in itself (ICE might fit that right now). But if the process were cleaned up, and the best behavior rewarded, perhaps then the regulation route would be effective, and prevent the need for litigation? And litigation doesn't always fit or get used correctly - Bush v. Gore should never have gone ahead - I think that was a state's issue, to determine the electors in the manner they chose, as per the U.S. Constitution. Risk-reward and natural corrections - I would say I agree, but when the risks are cloaked, and the nature of the company is more criminal and devious than any investor can see without being part of it's internal machinery, how are the average investors, or even those privy to the so-called books, supposed to know? Part of the matter is what to do when a company becomes so large that it is a big part of the economy, and a failure so significant, that the markets can plunge like a falling stone, there's both a psychological component, and an issue of the size of the company controlling so large a sector of the economy that suddenly fails, pulling down more than just a few shares of stock. Your advice is sound on investment, and I have to say that makes good sense.;) Yes, if the person has control of their own personal money management, and where the eggs are placed in the basket.. but in the case of ENRON, it seems that the company was pretending to be a secure investment, with steady growth, and for the retirees, the pensions were part of a negotiated plan, I think. Hmm.. And when they (ENRON) took over other companies, those sound companies suddenly lost that soundness, and many employees, hard at work, didn't even notice the "Titanic was sinking" so to speak. I have to say that few people I know have a good idea of what to invest in, how to invest safely, simply because they're busy in life, and have left it up to someone else, or their retirement package is managed for them, as through a union negotiated package. My bro lost about a third of his pension, which was in ENRON, but he wasn't aware of the shenanigans. When it all broke, and the house of cards fell, fighting it in court was futile, as the remains of the turkey were all ready picked over by the debtors ENRON owed, and the remaining assets were virtually worthless. He did keep the ENRON "E" and a few souvenirs like that.. I think, had the Congressmen and President been elected using clean money from a broad base of supporters, and there been proper banking oversight, then ENRON would have been investigated and shut down before they became the marshmallow that swallowed Manhattan. Perhaps pure markets would work, but then again I keep thinking we've tried that in the past, and problems surfaced which were not self-correcting, except through major see-saw swings in the economy (?)

Well, then it's more of an infomercial from her perspective? Biden answers questions, and Palin's selling lip-gloss - is that what you're saying?

And who's on the ticket, Briggins?

I am only saying that honest oversight is essential in any game, and as the economy is played out in the markets, it indeed needs Honest, intelligent oversight. With reform of the political process comes better representation on average, and with that can come better oversight. Free markets, completely unregulated, are sheer chaos in my mind, and can lead to disaster after disaster, as for example what happened with ENRON's house of cards. It's sad to see people in their 70's who have worked their lives for PGE (Pacific Gas and Electric) loose all their retirement, save for their Social Security investments, because ENRON took them over and nabbed their pensions before the implosion. Then we saw ENRON as Bush's #1 contributor in 2000 (Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling) - so, that's why I think we need more honest elections and campaigns; markets unregulated can go up and down like roller-coasters, and can lead to some pretty corrupt and cruel schemes that do no good for anyone, including the schemers.

I'd like to add that the President's office has gotten wayy wayy out of hand; originally intended to be more of a final stamp on legislation, and as a foreign policy office, with strict limitations on power and influence, it has Unconstitutionally grown to be the monster upon the scene. From signing statements to executive orders to executive privilege - a huge excess of control and privilege that is explicitly forbidden by our Constitution, and yet the Presidents have gradually increased the power of the office (In my opinion illegally against the direct clauses and intent of the U.S. Constitution) to a point where we have a virtual elected King - the exact problem our Revolution of 1776 had intended to eliminate! For that, there aught to be some recall or turn-over process in the Supreme Court, so a hopefully more honest Congress could then appoint Justices that follow the intent of the Constitution, and not play political games and make a mockery of it, permitting the President to act as some pontiff.