Was my immediate reaction to the headlines a few days ago of the AIG bailout. Didn't even know what AIG was really, other than what I read in the headline and the first paragraph or so of the front page article as I was walking by the newspaper stand on the street. Just somehow, I instinctively knew immediately, before my mind could begin to process the information, that this was wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels.

Now, I am at the numb stage... $700billion dollars... The non-military discretionary federal budget for all of 2007 was only $493 billion... you know, what the congress normally takes all year figuring out how to spend. You know all those "congressional earmarks" those bastards are always going on abut. And they just come and ask for nearly one and a half times that amount, because it is "necessary" no questions to be asked why or how it is going to be spent.

So bankers, you know those conmen who have figured out that it is better to extract money from you through trickery and deceit (late payment fees, transaction fees, letting you charge more than your credit limit on your card than you have so they can hit you with "default" rates, over the limit charges, etc. etc.) than to provide straightforward, honest banking services, can keep all the money they have stolen from their marks.

I could rant for hours, but the sense of doom and despair takes away my will.

There have been no free markets in America for many decades. Don't believe me? Try starting a business, or take a class in corporate accounting. If you think there's no regulations to be learned, you're simply ignorant. There have been stacks and stacks of regulations for many years. They didn't help.

You are making a very fundamental mistake here. You are confusing regulation with bureaucratic hurdles. The former says "you can't do that, because it is a bad idea" the latter says "you can do that, but only once you fill out these forms, pay these nominal fees, and make these cosmetic changes". The former keeps things like the current debacle from happening. The latter prevents the small fry who can't afford a battery of accountants and lawyers from playing with the big boys. The big boys hate regulation, but don't mind at all the bureaucratic hurdles... it makes it harder for there to be effective competition. Real regulation that reigns in the big boys has been gutted since the 70s. But the bureaucracy keeps growing, which also benefits the big boys. Win-win for them, lose-lose for the other 99%

it's because

"Power's as pure as impeccable snow" -- John Myers Myers

When being obscure, one should at least be precise...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_(mythology)

This poem has often come to mind when reading UT. I finally dug it up for hopefully everyone's amusement.

The God Enki, to It, on informing him he will be keeping the Mes from humanity

(by John Myers Myers, from "The Moon's Fire Eating Daughter")

If ever you venture to gamble, my boy

Eschew as the grave any innocent games

Where nothing's at stake but the fun of the ploy.

Such trifling with riches society blames

As heinous, while leaping to honor the names

Of felon endeavorers, clever to throw

Their ropes upon juicy imperial aims,

For power's as pure as impeccable snow.

Be chary of stealing, if needing the loot;

That's vulgar, and rightly a gallows offense.

But wealth is a touchstone adept to transmute

Despicable crimes to proceedings of sense:

Historians purr when a theft is immense

Who'd scorn to applaud if the winnings are low;

For poverty's granted no moral pretense

While power's as pure as impeccable snow.

The chasm that yawns between maker and man

Is simple for any inquirer to spell:

For gods there exists no morality ban

On following purposes selfish as fell.

They'll fry you alive for their joy in your yell

(All torts they perform without menace of woe),

And lose of their holiness never a del,

Since power's as pure as impeccable snow.

You're cooked, if you're mortal and minus the pelf,

To bail out your soul with a temple or so,

For this is the dictum on deity's shelf:

'Yea, power's as pure as impeccable snow.'

It will be a very long while before the Supreme Court has a majority of members appointed by Democratic presidents. If the Dems win the presidency and both houses of congress, look for a suddenly very activist Supreme Court to start flexing its muscles. I don't know if that could be called a reason for comfort by anybody rational though.

As for those looking for having significant third parties, just look to the recent election to the North. The Conservatives continue to be in control with just 37.6% of the popular vote giving them 143 seats in parliament, compared with the liberal (26.24%, 76 seats)+NDP (18.2%, 37 seats)+Green (6.8%, 0seats)= 51.2%, 113 seats (listed in roughly increasing order of progressiveness). The rest mostly went to the Bloq Quebecois (9.97%, 50 seats... the advantage of being a regional party) who are generally fairly progressive in party, but being a party of separatists, in general don't give a crap about how the rest of Canada does.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/

So trying to get an "instant run-off" type of voting system should really be considered a prerequisite for any system with more than two parties.