so what? as long as the american public watches, cow-eyed, or just flips to the sports channel, this behavior works and it will just get worse.

the political class is all those things, because the under-class is too dim, ignorant or frightened to see the need for change.

no one can expect the republican party to call for democracy, but it is strange that a 'democrat' party is equally silent. yes, even 'saint' obama wants to be president a whole lot more than he wants to make significant change in the way things get done in the beltway

and it's lo-tech: reduce population by 90% and put the remainder on bicycles. told you it was easy.

nuclear war may do it, bio-war can help out. but until the human race faces up the concept of planned population reduction, the poor ol' four horsemen are gonna saddle up.

sorry, but flash new power supplies just push the problem back a generation or two. in the end, there is finite space on this planet, water and air are already overburdened, extinctions are rising- and still people are talking about 'growth' and 'development'.

regulation is impossible, if secrecy is possible. 'transparency' must be more than a new buzz word, it must be the label on doing business in public, in the light of day, in the glare of law.

communication now makes it possible to publish commercial activity immediately. the law should make it necessary. this will bring real market forces to play on financial activity, actual value will perforce replace shady deals.

it ain't gonna happen. "socialism!" they'll cry, and pollies will defend the right of slickers to cheat and steal. obama isn't going to change anything, except the important change of putting his bod in the oval office.

you want government 'for the people'? demand government 'by the people'.

it's just that the pronouncements he is paid to make are often out of sync with the ordinary reality we proles understand. the underlying, 'true', reality will manifest itself in due course. elect mccain and wait patiently, dear plebs.

candidates for president are driven by muscular egos. obama could not possibly imagine himself less attractive than gore.

besides, gore appears to have found a career which is more respectable than president. this is not so difficult anymore.

he just got tired of pretending the democrat party had anything to do with democracy. i suppose he should declare himself an independent, but it's early yet- after he's been through the libs and greens he can do independent.

this doesn't matter. he can't walk on water, he can't change water into wine. the simpletons who imagine there is a leader out there that will make it unnecessary for them to have to think hard thoughts are unimpressed, but they voted for dubya.

whatever his faults, gravel is right about one thing, and it's a biggy. the us of a is not a democracy, and life would be better for most if it were.

professional pollies aren't going to tell you this, serious candidates will just tell you "vote for me, and i'll take care of you." even if they do, there'll be another one along that'll untake care of you.

only when government of the people is by the people, will it be for the people. if gravel has woken up a few americans to this basic fact, he has done his nation more good than obama ever will.

shouldn't we be looking at this 'cooling antarctica' a little more objectively?

exxon might be promoting useful counter-argument, even if by accident. so saying "it's from exxon" is not only not good enough, it harms your argument for 'cooling' by turning towards ad hominem.

it's easy to imagine atmospheric heat melting ice even if the underlying temperature is cooling slightly, it's just a matter of 'heat in - heat out' being positive. that's the important bit, not "exxon".

if you don't know why you're there, if you don't know when you're leaving, if you don't know what happens when an angry u. s. marine corps passes through, if you don't know what dropping a bomb on a wedding party means, if you don't know that five years of shooting up nation means, how the hell are you going to tell the difference between bungle and success?

if you turn iraq into a moonscape with a single pole standing, "old glory" at the hoist, is that success?

there is no bungle here, for the invasion of iraq was planned by men who filed war crimes under "collateral damage". progress has been slower than they hoped, but they file casualties and expense under "shit happens". as long as one american soldier stands in iraq, their plan is proceeding. no bungle, just delayed triumph.

this wouldn't have happened if the whole political class hadn't put career ahead of duty. most of the people in congress are craven hypocrites who would sell their children for a vote. that's in fact what they did. well, sell other people's children...

the american people are well represented by these jackals, who are returned to congress, instead of suspended from a noose.

i can't imagine how to govern that place. the social turmoil consequent on the 'capitalization' of the place is bad enough, but they have to do it when resources are running out, and global warming threatens disaster. these last two problems, btw, are caused by the usa, more than anyone else.

the early days of america's industrialization weren't pretty either, and the latest pustules on the face of 'mature' capitalism are scaring america's financial mandarins worse than anything since the depression.

in short, sing together: "pot don't mock the kettle, there but for the grace of god, i'd ruther settle for beijing, than try to run in baghdad."