Honestly I don't know why Oregon's vote-by-mail system is not considered a standard for the rest of the country.

I love it.

I got my ballot last Monday. I spent two hours yesterday morning with the ballot and the handy voter's pamphlets the state provides. I have lots of time to verify that I'm voting the way I want (no pressure of people in line behind me or having to get back to work). I have the information on the canidates and ballot initiatives directly in front of me for reference as I vote (and given the number and confusing lanquage of a lot of the initiatives that is a HUGE help). After I finished I spent a few minutes going over the ballot to make certain I didn't screw anything up and put it in the mail yesterday afternoon. It will be at the elections office by Tuesday.

The elections office is extremely helpful if you make a mistake or have a question. They got a replacement ballot to my co-worker within 24 hours of his request. They answered questions from another co-worker quickly and accurately.

Since its inception more than a decade ago, vote-by-mail has increased voter turnout in Oregon.

It is a great system.

Too all those out there who mocked Howard Dean and his 50 state strategy. Who laughed at Obama's efforts to stretch the electoral map.

I give you the Republican party spending money to defend Montana.

And even if the Dems lose this cycle they will have built up donor lists, volunteers, mailing and phone lists and oraganizations in all these formally 'red' states. Organizations that can be tapped and used in 2012 and beyond. Used to support democrats at the local level (a badly underserved group under DLC leadership).

Local politics is where tomorrow's national leaders come from. Local mayors, city councils, state legislatures, governors. Building this organization now gives the Democrats a chance, if they take it, to do what the Republicans did in the 70s and 80s, build a real electoral majority.

To the best of my knowledge there has been no cases in Oregon of fraud involving the vote-by-mail system. The Post Office is extremely efficient in getting ballots delivered to the elections office in a timely manner (usually next day).

The counting is far more centralized in this system meaning its easier to monitor and check than large numbers of spread out county offices and counting locations.

The state makes available a large number of drop off lock boxes for ballots on Nov 4th for those who vote at the last minute in addition to standard polls. Again, to the best of my knowledge there have been no reported incidents involving fraud with the lock boxes. Basically the process operates as if every person is voting absentee and is as secure (possibly even more secure) as the absentee system in any other state.

Front end voter suppression(caging, purging voter lists etc) is a separate issue and one that I fully agree needs a great deal of attention.

As for counting side, once again, to the best of my knowledge there have been no reported incidents of fraud in the counts. It is my believe that having the system centralized makes fraud more difficult. Believe me, the party's lawyers are well represented at the elections office and during the entire counting process. It is far more difficult to keep track of multiple counting locations and ballots.

Washington state is starting to move to a similar system and I reiterate my believe that Oregon should be used as a model for the rest of the country.

What are they going to cut rates too. -1%. Is the Fed going to give banks an extra $1,000 for every million they borrow.

Rate cuts are designed to spur DEMAND for loans. The problem is not demand. Lots of people want cash (just look at the line of beggars at Paulson's door).

The problem is SUPPLY. Banks have bad balance sheets. They don't have enough secure capital to make loans. They need a reason to give money. They need to be recapitalized and they need to be comfortable that they will make a reasonable return on those loans.

Cutting rates does NONE of those things. It decreases the value of savings, driving people away from putting cash in banks (less available capital), it cuts the rate of return on loans (again less money in the door).

The Fed either should hold rates where they are or better yet raise rates to 3-5%.

The neglect and indeed complete disregard for science by the Bush adminstration is perhaps one of the more underreported travesties of the last eight years (I know, I know, how does one pick from so many?).

These Nobel Laureates are dead on correct in how this neglect and dismantling of science will seriously harm America and the world in the years and decades to come.

The most critical problems facing the world today, climate change and the environment, demand sound science and vigous development of new ideas and an openness for change. All of which have been stymied under Bush's mismanagement and politization of the process.

The world has lost eight years, eight critical years, in combatting global climate change. Eight years we will not get back.

Let us hope that we can get back on track. The vast majority of the scientific community says we have, at best, only 4-5 years to start making signifigant changes before we cross the thershold to irrepairable harm to our environment.

The Fed is stupid. Cutting rates does not help in this situation, in fact it hurts.

For the last few years the Fed has done something nearly unprecedented. It has kept interest rates BELOW the rate of inflation. It has skewed all measures of risk in the economy and created a system that punishes short and mid-term savings and practically forces people to levarage what little earnings they get just to buy the basics like shelter and food.

America still has a long way to go.