chuck kottke

Time to Hoardeth the Goldeth! [smile] Most of the market is psychological; if it dips down, somehow we'll figure out how to get it back to normal.. Personally, I think the markets neglect quality of life in favor of quantity of stuff; and need oversight by competent, independent, and checked and balanced governance.. We depend on this so much for our very survival, it seems too trivial to either just "let it ride", or to allow the political whims of the day create such disasters in the making.. BTW - what are "pie-eaters"? PS- Word on the street here has that Pelosi's speech tipped the balance, and because she was blaming the Republicans for the financial woes, they retaliated in droves with the "no" votes. But the lawmakers were faced with calls to their offices on the order of 300-against to 1-for the measure, so whether or not it was the right thing to do, many caved to the pressure of short-term thinking; one might think curtailing the excesses of TV attack ads and creating room on the broadcast networks for more real substantive debate on political races & issues would allow the public to see what really is going on, and to make a more informed choice either way on the matter. And again, I think terms should be for 6-years in the house (on a 2-year rotation for a third of the house members), and limit their time in office to 2 or 3 terms max. That might take the pressures off short-term thinking and political gambit taking.

Good! It got stopped. Maybe one aspect not being discussed is why politicians try to buy votes on such short-term thinking (by loosening the rules too much). I almost think they would act more rationally if their terms were longer, and there were strict term limits. Make both the house and senate 6-year terms, but limit them to perhaps two terms? It's the same thing with Social Security - the politicians kept taking from the funds to balance the budget so they could get re-elected. I think they knew better, but this was the game they were playing to hold on to their seats, and to be able to tell their constituents that they balanced the budget (with taboo funds from a "secure" retirement system).?

Anyhow, back to topic: To bring about true representation of the will of we, the people, and to protect the commons, especially our access to the broadcast spectrum; essentially our right of access to the modern public square, the following amendment is being put forth: The right of citizens of the United States to fair elections and fair contests between candidates for public office shall be protected and improved. Access to the modern public square, the broadcast spectrum (a shared commons) for public debate and candidate appeals shall be granted equally to all candidates for public office, and offered without charge to candidates as a means of returning to the public an essential part of our public square. Musings: In return for the privilege of using a given frequency or set of frequencies for which none others have access, the broadcasters owe something in return to the citizens for that privilege of control over the commons. A much needed candidate and ideas dialog, where money plays no part, so all voices can be heard and special interests can't simply buy the message and airtime they want - to put the contests on equal footing, and allow the choice to be based more on substance, rather than emotional appeal. Time allotment for candidate appeals, debates, and endorsements selected by the board below? It should be when most citizens will be listening/watching - perhaps 10 hrs. per month minimum, and no sooner than 6 months prior to the election?? - In considering fair contests, the maximum allowable contribution limit should be set by an independent board - composed of a mix of randomly selected economists & ordinary citizens. How many members? Maybe neither too small a body (so there is plenty of diversity), nor too large (so they can get something done). I would guess somewhere between 10 and 100; perhaps 1 per every 10 million citizens? - the limit for campaign contributions could be tied to the living wage, or to the median income level in the country. One idea would be to take the median income level of roughly $42,000/ 365 days in the calendar year, and multiply by two. That would mean the maximum allowable contribution would be on the order of $230 US currency. For someone in the lower income bracket, matching funds may be provided to balance the influence? At any rate, this would make participation in any candidate's race affordable, and make candidates more accountable to the broad majority of their constituents. Comments welcome!

National Grassroots Pressure led to the CRA?? Hmm.. well then, maybe there was a good measure of gross incompetence involved! But it may be more than this - I did watch a special on the changes in people's lives today, and it's a little more complicated, including how a number of factors are squeezing people into making poor choices, which when taken as a whole, explains a lot more as to why there's so much default in our economy today.

Well, we're being told the world would go into a depression, with the US leading the way down, if we don't have the bail out. Perhaps this is true the way the markets got rigged. Personally, I see the problem is systemically the result of poor checks and balances on the elections and campaign process, which allows excess corruption & kickbacks, which then allows certain bad ideas to become law to favor a particular special interest group penning the legislation. The profit motive is a good one - I agree - but unregulated or poorly/wrongheadedly regulated lending practices, which are not for the best interests of the nation or world as a whole, are where the faults damages the process. The questions we need to ask, in any mystery, is where is the motive? Or, is it just the result of gross incompetence?

Julia, I understand - it's a strange thing about this modern world. There are times when it's inappropriate, or just weird - I feel for you. It's that way with movies and movie stars, but that's to be expected - and I've often wondered how they dealt with it, but now it's a broad swath of humanity, including people we know. I've thought about that too - all the recorded images take a snapshot of our lives, but a lot of the intimacy and sincerity gets lost, which is what we all need at times like these...

Hello Rob in Vancouver! It heartens me to hear of your compassion and thoughts, and the depth of your perception of our collective disconnect. I feel roughly the same, as it seems we have lost the governor on the engine of humanity, and are over-speeding the engine, now ready to blow apart. We've set up this horse race, and we humans have become the horses in the race, most with blinders on. And myopia sets in with little time to see ahead or to the sides, and get a sense of proportion. I saw David Suzuki's presentation on Public Broadcasting a while back, and I'm impressed with his perception of what is happening as well. Compassion and relations take time to build, and reflection that's essential to clearer thinking gets lost in the daily shuffle. I thought to myself as well about how we haven't the same level of appreciation, and are gambling everything today like it's all just a game. But not all is lost. I'm hoping, given the current crisis, that we'll return to our rootedness, and complete where we left off in 1976, for a sustainable, stable, and more satisfying world, sans the excess ego and hubris. It's been my passion for a long time to see a better future, and be a part of that change as well. Glad you could join in! With Solidarity, -Chuck.

Yes, the news came as a bit of a shock to me as well.. He was as descent, caring, and honest, and down-to-earth human being as anyone could have hoped for, and did a great deal of good for charity's sake. I still can't believe he's gone. Long live his passion and his inspiration; his indomitable spirit and true grit.

Neither is acceptable. But we are all persuadable at times, and blinded when we hear what is good coming from the candidate, but on the delivery end comes another package. They are both guilty of it, but the levels vary, as well as the % from the various donor groups. All I'm saying is they are not identical. And I'm not a major supporter of Ron Paul's version of Libertarianism, because I do feel there is more of a role for our government in more things than just the courts and the military for defense of the contiguous states alone. But I do feel the Constitution is being destroyed by the corruption as well - I just feel the solution may be with a Constitutional Amendment, and reforms to get the big money out of politics. I just went to the Common Cause site - http://www.commoncause.org Maybe not the whole answer, but some of it.

Funny! So, the more we suggest, the more music Coldplay will reproduce in living color!:P Hmm.. AC/DC Thunderstruck - wow, the beginning of that tune is just mesmerizing! And it's so close to classical music, I think Mozart, or at least Beethoven would approve..:laugh3:

Hmm.. well, I did like the Shining - not a big fan of scary movies, but it was so very well done! Good List! I liked Princess Bride (funny simple humor), and it's been a while - I'd like to see "It's a Mad, Mad World" again, just to recall it!

Party Town! Wikipedia says Newcastle has a reputation for being a fun-loving city with many bars, restaurants, and night clubs. More recently Newcastle has become a popular destination for Stag and Hen parties. What exactly are Stag and Hen Parties?? (Inquiring minds need to know..) ;-> It goes on to say that "Newcastle was in the top 10 of the country's top night spots, and The Rough Guide placed Newcastle Upon Tyne's nightlife as Great Britain's #1 tourist attraction. Sounds good to me !!

And I'm totally lost on the whole basis of why anyone would mock Newcastle in the first place! Is it some inside joke of sorts?? What gives with this?

So one might assume we all know McCain's faults.. Not even I know all his faults! Of course, probably a good idea to know the Vice Presidential candidates as well, since the odds of having a VP become president still stacks near 1:6... I don't want change by electing the same - I am left choosing the lesser compromised of two compromised candidates, and wanting to amend the US Constitution.

Nyet! ;-) If one good long-term side-effect comes out of all this, I think it will spur the American pubic to action to force reform measures upon the political scene in the US & it's kick-back mechanisms, and straiten at least some of the worst behaviors out. Ironic that it takes an economic derailment to make plain the need for reform.. I'm still opting for an amendment to the US Constitution stating our natural right to fair elections and fair candidate contests, and caps on the money to keep the wall street con-artists from having such corrupting influence..

Neither corruption is good - I'm just making plain for all to see that both are culpable. What you want is a one-sided look into just Barack Obama's corruption, but you claim to see both major party candidates as corrupt. Anyhow, if you want to read more, please see the article in Slate magazine: http://www.slate.com/id/1004633

McCain's Corruption: His implication and admission of being involved in the notorious "Keating 5" involving an S&L scam. He admitted that what he did was wrong, but where was the punishment for breaking the rules?? All the rest did jail time, as I recall. Now if that were you or I, would we be allowed to just opt out of the court case just because we admitted to being guilty??

To start with, John McCain is no maverick! He voted strait in line with the Bush administration on all but 3 major votes; he has a 95% approval of Bush's proposals, and his support is tipped in favor of big donors as a percentage of his campaign cash. Only 32% from contributions of $200 or less; 71% from donations of $2,300 or more. And he wants us to go further with the nefarious wars, believing that the answer is more, not less occupations.

Equal Time for Both Major Party Candidates.

Come on, come on , Listen to the Money Talk! (I think about that one when I think about our politics!)..

What I was thinking.. :):rolleyes:Hmm.. What I was thinking.. I was pondering a way to write an amendment to the US Constitution spelling out our right to fair elections and fair contests between candidates. Something defending our right to the commons (the airwaves) because they essentially have become the public square in modern times, and it seems to me that anyone using the common broadcast spectrum, a privilege granted by our government on our behalf to a very small number of broadcasters, that these broadcasters owe the public time for public debates, statements, and candidate appeals on an equal basis to any qualified candidate for public office, and without charge in return for their monopoly's control of the spectrum. Freedom of speech should not be preferentially granted to those who can buy the most air time; and the first safeguard against abuses of our rights and system of checks and balances starts with an equal footing for all qualified candidates. Also, it seems reasonable to cap contributions to an amount readily affordable by the broad majority of citizens, so that candidates represent broad coalitions of the public, and are not tipped in favor of those with the means to buy the preferential treatment. What's gone awry is the influence peddling and system of kick-backs that has been eroding our democratic institutions, and I'd like to see that change.;) The Supreme Court of the US has decided "money is free speech" - they say money talks, but all I hear is the biggest bucks with the loudest megaphones, drowning out the will of the people!

Led Zepplin - ....ah yes, Stairway to Heaven!! YesYesYes!!! This could be good. This could be very, very good!!

Starfish.....

And you must be a globe trotter as well then?!! Welcome to the board, and keep cool in Aussie land! ;--)

The biggest problem I have with McCain is his willingness to cave to the powers-that-be; on economics, endless wars break nations. And he's cuddled up to the old Bush donors, some of the worst actors to grace the economic stage since Boss Tweed's machine in NY. Percent change by 2012 in the after-tax income of the top 0.1 % of US earners under Barack Obama's tax plan: -5 Percent change under John McCain's tax plan: +12 Source: The Funny Times. www.funnytimes.com So if everything goes according to plan, it looks like McCain will reward the super-rich, and probably put more of the burden on the working class; Obama, at least according to his plan, would increase the taxes on the super-wealthy, and lower the taxes on workers. Borris Badenov - because Badenov ig Goodenough!