With the Republican party leaderless and in backbiting disarray following its destruction by the ideologically incoherent George W. Bush, Democrats are apparently eager to join the hara-kiri brigade. What looked like smooth coasting to the 2010 election has now become a nail-biter. Both major parties have become a rats' nest of hypocrisy and incompetence. That, combined with our stratospheric, near-criminal indebtedness to China (which could destroy the dollar overnight), should raise signal flags. Are we like late Rome, infatuated with past glories, ruled by a complacent, greedy elite, and hopelessly powerless to respond to changing conditions?

What does either party stand for these days? Republican politicians, with their endless scandals, are hardly exemplars of traditional moral values. Nor have they generated new ideas for healthcare, except for medical savings accounts, which would be pathetically inadequate in a major crisis for anyone earning at or below a median income.

And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the "mob" -- a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.

And what kind of siblings need a contract?  I have a handshake deal with my landlady, never mind family.

  Bad form? Maybe to some but certainly not a civil wrong.

That lottery stuff, gambling, dividing families, friends etc...for me it is relational to our big time problem in the current basic banking system. Especially showing the flaws in the unregulated derivative market. Agreements and deals challenged now within states vary extensively in many cases favor the rich or special interest. Were are the rights of the individual ?  

My feelings are this "Derivative" market is similar and simply a gamble in contracts closely related to this lottery example. Worse in any free environment one has to accept the reality of profiteering and pirating is not only attractive but compelling lurking behind the corner with out having regulation.  

And finding out the big time special interest losers simply belly up to the tax payer window in secret deals through the Treasury or the Federal Reserve will lead any culture to chaos. Leading to the same fragmentation in business, friendship, because of a wide variety in state and federal laws. Americans now see this in real time as if we are in Renaissance of change. We are in this Renaissance of change it just happens to have some audacity with it. Guess who wrote the book on the audacity of hope, for change? Of course Obama.

Heck the same inconsistences are wide spread in the Health care insurance stuff. Imagine all the business concerns that fail state local laws. Or fail to serve local issues, local states "attorneys" that take no initiative to police this stuff. Why does it take the Federal law to get something done? Why is their a Federal Grand jury to make major contribution to ferrite out corruption. Why do we have lame convictions after years of court just to convict on perjury that has nothing to do with the issues? It is for media fuel, and reelection reasons for the politicians, all in a political fix.    

Companies that sell life insurance and term insurance go back on their agreements.  Look at the huge huge disclaimers pasted on your television in small letters one can hardly read hundreds of tiny words that are insane to interpret in three seconds but commit to fulfill the local legal needs in the zoo distribution of sneaking out of a contract. Credit dot com commercials plastered all over the electromagnetic medium definitely know something about me, how did they get that information, tell your mom and your dad. Sheesh. Then day after day Tax masters shows you how to save thousands of dollars. Why can't I find that on my tax form...

State Sen. Farley's comment...

Sen. Hugh Farley, R-Niskayuna, a business law professor, said the pot activists don't bother him, and he considers them "kind of funny."

"They weren't obnoxious; they weren't in your face," he said. "Every time we came out of conference they tended to be there. I don't think they were taken seriously by anybody; I don't think their issue is taken seriously by anyone. In my judgment they were just trying to get attention."

ABC's Martha Raddatz, on "Good Morning America": "To make matters worse, ABC News has been told the three [American hikers] have now been moved to Iran's capital, which makes it even more likely they will be used as pawns."

McKinley, who outspent Bryan by an estimated 10 to 1, won handily, proving Hanna's famous dictum: "There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can't remember what the second one is."

[snip]

In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act, the first federal law barring corporate campaign contributions. States adopted similar laws.

Since then, Congress has repeatedly ratified the federal ban.

[snip]

But the Supreme Court has decided to force the question: It took a case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the ban on corporate contributions was not a central issue; told the parties to prepare legal briefs on the ban's constitutionality; and rushed to put oral arguments on the calendar in September before the new term even starts.

The court's conservative majority has been aggressively championing the rights of corporations, but overturning the contributions ban would take it to a new level. Corporations have enormous treasuries, and there are a lot of things they want from government, many of which clash with the public interest.

The stress of a poor economy and a liberal administration led by a black president are among the causes for the recent rise, the report from the Southern Poverty Law Center says. Conspiracy theories about a secret Mexican plan to reclaim the Southwest are also growing amid the public debate about illegal immigration.

A legal blend of herbs sold as incense under the name "Spice" may soon be illegal in the United Kingdom, as it reportedly contains a designer variety of synthetic cannabinoids which creates an effect some users say is similar to a marijuana high.