So much for the idea that voter fraud isn't an issue.>

I think the E.U. is unique in terms of political organization. In terms of economic ideology and policy enshrined in various stages in various constititutions, charters, institutions etc.--it's without a doubt neoliberal , in my and many others' opinion. (As a matter of fact, neoliberalism is virtually predominant globally).

The political structure was pretty much designed to allow the imposition of neoliberal policies on recalcitrant national populations. They go hand in hand.

<The Maastricht regime is truly special and unique in featuring a federal supranational monetary authority paired with national fiscal authorities. Reflecting the fact that the EU is not a proper political union, there is no common federal budget (to speak of) and, in fact, no European state standing behind the common currency that member states agreed to share control over. Inother words, member states agreed to surrender their monetary, but not their fiscal, sovereignty.> <...the ECB, as well as the NCBs of (all) EU member states—together forming the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), as distinct from the Eurosystem—are prohibited from providing credit facilities to Europe’s fiscal authorities or “monetizing” public debt through direct purchases of public debt securities. To further protect “the printing press,” constraints were put on public debt financing, too.

In particular, budget deficits exceeding 3 percent of GDP are generally deemed “excessive” and offenders will normally face penalties under the “excessive deficit procedure” (EDP) unless they can claim special circumstances for erring from the prescribed path of fiscal virtue. The principles of fiscal virtue laid out in the Maastricht Treaty were further underscored by the socalled Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), which requires members to attain a budget “in balance or in surplus” over the cycle.

Finally, to protect the national partners from each other’s fiscal failings, a “no bail-out” clause was included in the treaty, supposedly containing any national solvency issues at the respective national level at which they might arise.>

<<Essentially> the euro is managed by a federal supranational central bank that is not properly accountable to either national or European political authorities. The guardian’s mandate, as laid down in the treaty, is to “maintain price stability” and, without prejudice to this primary objective, to contribute to the achievement of other objectives pursued by the union (such as growth and employment). No doubt this mandate offers central bankers an enormous degree of independence, i.e., discretion, in interpreting “price stability” and how to attain it, and in deciding what may constitute risks to this primary objective (and thus circumscribe the bank’s support for any other goals).>

<Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, the ECB’s peculiar form of central bank independence is enshrined in the treaty, which means that the ECB also enjoys the virtual absence of credible threats to have its constitution changed. By purposeful design there is thus a clear dominance of central bankers and monetary policy within the Maastricht regime.>

<<...Europe’s policymakers> cherish the romantic idea that “liberalized” and “flexible” markets would generate any required adjustments on their own and without any further policy interferences with market forces. Guided by the “principles of an open market economy” and to raise and unleash Europe’s growth potential in full, the whole focus of the EU’s policy agenda has been to foster market flexibility.

Making matters worse still, Germany—as a monetary union member—supercharged its national mercantilism, thereby causing serious intra-area imbalances and preparing the ground for internal crises of calamitous dimensions.>

You must wonder why the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by standing in the way of efforts to curb it.

When is the last time you spent an morning or afternoon at the Motor Vehicle Division voluntarily? Let's be fair about this. Suppose that, in order to vote, *everyone*, even those who already have driving licenses, had to go to the MVD to get a picture ID. Would you go? How many Republicans would make an extra trip there just to be able to exercise their franchise?

<at this point, we don't really have a "government" so much as a set of loose agreements informally negotiated in private between large corporations to provide for their continued mutual profitability.

"Government" is just the name we give to that branch of the corporations tasked with public relations, securing resources, and imposing their will upon the populace.

"Elections" are simply part of these PR activities. The job of government (in particular the president) is to sell the interests of business to the American people.

Our Congress exists as a mechanism to diffuse responsibility for unpopular policies among a constantly rotating group of hundreds of "legislators" who do little but make predetermined "votes" on bills that have been written by industry lobbyists.

The courts serve largely as a means of providing a constant stream of prisoners to be fed into our for-profit private prison system, and to enact policies that could never be actually legislated even in our Congress (corporate personhood, for instance). The really vital negotiations never reach court--they are settled in secret by the interested parties.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...

<A San Diego jury awarded a man and his wife nearly $7.5 million Friday in their civil suit against Starbucks after the man fell inside a North County business in 2008.

The case, which was filed in 2009, centered on Anthony Zaccaglin, who reportedly sustained a concussion after falling inside a Starbucks located on Melrose in Vista. Zaccaglin slipped and hit his head on a cash register as he was walking from the cashier to the pickup counter, according to Zaccaglin's attorneys, who added that witnesses at the scene said a manager had just mopped the area where Zaccaglin slipped and also said that that employee later apologized for not "dry mopping.">

There's this take on the for-profit prison system: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofZS...

From the business point of view it makes perfect sense to ensure that non-violent offenders are incarcerated longer as they make a far more docile work force to churn out military garb and paints and whatnot, but is this something that could have happened without you guys in the USA noticing?