Everyone just assumes that growth is the answer to everything. If Company X isn't growing, it's not performing well. So Company X cooks its books and gets into complex securitization of abstract, paper assets to display the illusion of growth for investors, who then demand more and more growth, leading to more and more book-cooking and further abstractions of paper assets, rendering the growth even more illusory, but who cares because the stock keeps rising and the bonuses keep rolling in ... and then, inevitably, the bubble bursts.

The current state of the economy demands a radical fix - we need to get off of the growth-based model, and shift to a more steady state model. Economists who preach the gospel of growth have conveniently left out the fact that unchecked growth plunders resources and is not a viable long-term strategy for the planet. The earth cannot grow along with its economies - there are limited resources that are being stripped to the bone by growth.

Until those in Washington and the IMF and World Bank realize that growth may be the easy answer, but not the sustainable answer, we will just continue to dig ourselves a deeper and deeper hole.

By hanging out in a group and getting to know someone before becoming intimate, you're able to perform a kind of quasi-de facto background check on them. You're less likely to wind up on a date, alone, with Charles Manson or Donnie Date Rape if you're friends first. Of course it's not 100% bulletproof, but it's much safer in this day and age to get to know someone first before a) getting into his car; b) spending time alone; and c) gettin' jiggy wit' it. And it works for the guys, too ... before I was in a relationship, I was able to significantly cut down on the psycho factor by befriending a girl (or her group of friends) before going out. The batshit-craziest girls I dated were ones I did not know (or know any of their friends) before going out with them.

... that these career politicians are "principled" rather than "beholden to their largest donors"? I always get a chuckle out of people who claim politicians are too ideological one way or another. Politicians don't care about ideology ... they care about getting re-elected. It's hilarious when people forget this and try to use a politician's record as evidence for their internal beliefs or moral compass. These politicians are chameleons of the highest order. All their past voting record shows is the path of least resistance to re-election. It has nothing to do with how they personally feel about a given issue. Thus, there is no reason believe that Salazar, Vilsack, and the others won't fall in line and do what they're told.

It was a ridiculous attempt to grab headlines by trying to have him removed under a statute that is reserved for extraordinary circumstances, like if he were to have a stroke or suffer from a debilitating mental illness.

I still can't find anything illegal about what Blagojevich allegedly did. Utterly hamfisted and lacking any measure of finesse, sure, but illegal? This kind of horse-trading has gone on in politics since the days of Cicero. Blago was just too blatant about it.

Don't get me wrong, the guy is an incredible turd and has lost all respect here in Lincolnland. But I'm glad the court did the right thing by not allowing this silly attempt to remove him from even getting off the ground. He will face the music in due course, and he should be afforded all the protections of the law until then.

I know all that stuff is "illegal", but from my understanding, he didn't actually go through with any of it, and the attempts to do so weren't necessarily so clear. And the Children's Hospital stuff - where I think the real illegality was - was not a part of the criminal complaint (though it was in the affidavit). I'm not saying I support the guy - I think he's a delusional hack with a narcissistic personality disorder, and one of the worst governors we've ever had. I'd love to see him go down.

I'm just getting sick of the righteous indignation, feigned outrage, and nauseating sanctimony coming from the media over this, when anyone with a clue knows that this exact kind of stuff goes on in every government on every level since the beginning of recorded history. And it's particularly disgusting that during the same week that a bipartisan committee basically found that our President and former Secretary of Defense committed war crimes, everyone ignores that and instead foams at the mouth over some petty attempted shakedowns by an ineffectual hack governor.

To get the major things done, Obama needs as much popular support as possible. By inviting the mega-popular Rick Warren to participate in a very, very minor way in the inauguration, Obama's reaching out to a GINORMOUS voting bloc by appearing to extend the olive branch. What a masterstroke - you get all sorts of people on board with a totally symbolic gesture that doesn't mean anything.

He didn't name Rick Warren to the Supreme Court. He didn't nominate him for a cabinet position. He didn't say Warren will have anything to do with policymaking. Rather, he invited him to give one 2 minute speech among 75 other 2 minute speeches. But that 2 minute speech will help loads of conservatives to get on board with Obama's plans.

There was a fascinating discussion of effective diplomacy on NPR's America Abroad, and the salient point was that you get the most done by listening and not by talking. Changing the hearts and minds of the religious right involves engaging them and listening to them, not browbeating them with examples of how wrong they are.

Why do so many people not get that?