tvashtarkatena

I believe air and emotion as collateral have already been tried.

I wouldn't compose a requiem for democracy just yet. The world has steadily marched towards democracy over the past century, most notably since the end of colonialism and the fall of the Soviet Union. Even China, officially communist, has become far more democratic since its Maoist days. Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian revolution is a temporary luxury funded by petro-dollars, not a latin American-wide movement. Most of latin America, although perhaps less aligned with the United States now, remains solidly democratic. Truly totalitarian states, once the norm for half the world, can only be found in a few backwater nations these days. I suppose you could point to Putin and Chavez as bellweathers, but somehow, I doubt they're leading some world trend. So what of the future? The future will bring more localism forced by increasingly expensive energy. Localism typically brings a more democratic system for obvious reasons, particularly when there is already a culture of democracy in place, as is the case over much of the world now. Larger national goverments will weaken as a result of this decentralization of political control brought about by resource limitations. Resource scarcity will mean less surplus with which to buy big national luxuries such as air craft carriers, space weapons, and fighter planes. The role of national goverments will shrink accordingly. That is not to say that national systems won't exist; information systems to aid in providing more efficient health care would be one consolidation that would greatly cut duplicated costs and waste, for example. But the nice-to-haves-but-don't-really-need, such as a huge offensive military (which sucks up 59% of our discresionary national budget) will no longer be affordable. In short, we in the US will probably see what seems like a contradiction; increased socialism (it's already happening, and will need to happen much more to achieve energy independence, etc) and a weaker federal goverment, primarily through shrinking a bloated military, paid for with debt, that we haven't been able to afford for quite some time now. Reaganesque federal control mechanisms, such as block grants to states, will probably go away to, leaving states to fend for themselves on most infrastructure issues.

One of Bail Out's glaring omissons is the return to the gold standard. Two big problems with mortgage backed securities are a) no one seems to know what they're worth and b) real estate values are subject to speculation. We need to base our fractional reserve on something with tangible, intrinsic value that, unlike real estate, is neither volatile nor speculated on.

Under the Keynesian Economics, wealth gets transferred to those who control it and everyone else is placed under its debt, just as it is today. Eventually the debt becomes too great to keep propped up by artificial economics. It builds debt, not wealth. Except for the people who sit at the top of this system. And is so cunning in its deceit, that only one in a million understand it, just like Keynes himself said. "By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some....The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose." - John Maynard Keynes Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920 Thomas Jefferson got it right! I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale. Can you explain for us again who is at fault for the present crisis? Nixon for doing away with the gold standard? Socialists? Deregulators? Whoever invented fractional reserve banking way back in the Middle Ages? Also, how has our wealth been gradually transfered to the government exactly? Did this continue to happen even in times of zero national debt? Use as few sentences as possible, please. We're not interviewing Sarah Palin here.

Why do you think Obama's arrogant? He doesn't seem to come across that way, and even McCain isn't claiming that. He's well spoken, confident, and gentlemanly. Does that come across as arrogant to you? If so, how should a well educated, well spoken person act nowadays? Just curious.

Somehow, given the way your man Gramps is doing, I dooooon't think that'll be necessary.

I like the new avatar. It's fucked up. Never was comfortable with the smurf (it's NOT A MUPPET, DYEEOOOOOD). I mean, what do smurfs represent? Anyone? And furthermore, did smurfs walk the earth at the same time Barney did?

It seems that the new bail out deal is even worse for the public than the old one due to the addition of even more regressive tax cuts. The increase in FDIC coverage from 100K to 250K is probably needed for businesses, not so much for individuals. The gaping whole in the plan, and one that greatly reduces its chances of bouying up the eonomy, is the lack of foreclosure/bankrupcy reform; the ability to re-negotiate primary home mortgages. This is the root cause of the current crisis. Not addressing it does not effectively address the crisis. It won't cost the Fed a dime, either, but, apparently, the GOP's base will have none of it. Meanwhile, McCain's numbers continue to slip. It seems that his grandstanding over the past two weeks didn't quite come off the way he expected it would. Newly registered voters nationwide, and there are a lot of them of late, are breaking for Obama 2:1. Oops.

Freeeekin Grinch'z alwayz got thuh nucul'r bud, brah

Pack that Third Dynasty one hitter with sumora thyat fawkin mummy weed, Doooooood.

Sounds like there'll be sum kyuhllr schmaoke thar, myahn.

I think what Dawg is implying here is that alcohol abuse is preferable to THC abuse.

I was just down in the Sierras, and, don't get me wrong, the Sierras are great, but they are very barren and monochromatic. I found myself missing those deep green glacier carved valleys that you never, ever want to drop into. After almost 3 decades, the Cascades still delight and surprise me every time I go out.

Oh, Jaybus, I just saw the banner ad. HAW!

2nd Ascent in Seattle is a DMM dealer and will order picks for customers. Doesn't help an Alaskan, but....

Dude, you're later than a republican presidential candidate during a financial crisis.

Even The Dumb in this country are just a little pissed off right now.

They've already floated that one. It went over like a grogon in a kiddy pool.

It's precisely this trait that has the national media skewering Palin. What plays well in podunk, AK, doesn't quite fly in the Pros.

Yeah, but that was parody back then. Now these Stepford-zombie-freaks run the country. It's just not funny anymore. Who knew Dallas was a reality show?

You can't make silk out of a Moose's ear. Palin's gonna look stupid during the debate, as she has during her other appearances (only this time she'll face an experienced, well spoken opponent who will try to make her look stupid, instead of fawning interviewers trying to help her embarrass herself less) and McCain's numbers will certainly not rise as a result. I'm not sure there's all that much wrong with the debate format. It's how the candidates choose to answer the questions that matters.

I just don't relate to these elitists: Now these folks, on the other hand, they seem so NORMAL!

No, actually, it isn't during this campaign, which is why Palin sticks out like a sore thumb. Obama answers questions asked with his policy proposals. Even McCain does a far better job at answering the actual question asked than Palin, who seems incapable of doing so. It seems that much of the Right now resorts to this kind of cynical "they're all the same" retort. Um, no. They're not all the same. It's just that your team absolutely sucks, and you know it.

Same as Moveon.org, except they're work for the Dark Side. Considering how our entire financial system is teetering right now, the threat of Islamic fundamentalism seems laughable.

I agree here. JayB's overly simplistic models attempt to put a closed system box around just a small piece of the equation, to the exclusion of human nature and resource limitations. Regarding isolationism; this is an ideolog's denigration of the term 'localism', which is increasing and will continue to do so as energy becomes more expensive and scarce. Localism may look a bit strange in the future, however. Considering that it is 10 times more expensive to haul freight by rail then by ship, and 10 times more expensive to haul by truck than rail, we may see a world where the West Coast and China have more economic interchange than the West and East Coast. In addition, goods brought in by ship from Asia may be cheaper than goods made in Washington that must be trucked over the Cascades. America will gradually separate economically into West and East because of the basic economics of transport. Add to this the increasingly prohibitive cost of air travel; the most expensive kind, resulting in less cultural and business interchange between the coasts, and we may see a gradual splitting of the country across several fronts. This begs the question; will it make sense for the United States to remain unified as a country once West and East stop trading and visiting with each other? As resource scarcity becomes more of a hardship, the political will to subsidize much of rural and suburban America's lifestyle will diminish. The more resource wealthy regions, such as the West Coast, will be pressured to stop subsidizing less productive regions, which will depopulate as a result.