Quote:

---

You can't get people to vote out incumbents or some case even find people willing to run against them

---

Quote:

---

I haven't much faith in the general public to do anything well.

---

Quote:

---

I think some people who have beem married 50-60 years might take issue with that comment...What you think of as boring eventually becomes part of a necessary routine. Marriage takes discipline and lack of ego to work, and with the right people, it can be a permanent thing and not be boring, but stabilizing...

---

Quote:

---

For a generation, he has been considered a model of conservatism in Washington – at moments, perhaps, the model. Over the course of his 34-year career, US Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) of Utah has clashed with Big Labor. He has championed right-wing judicial nominees. He has consistently opposed federal gun control measures and backed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. He has sponsored or cosponsored a balanced budget amendment – which would require Congress to spend no more than it collects in revenues – no fewer than 17 times. In 2010, the American Conservative Union gave him a perfect 100 ranking.

Yet today Mr. Hatch faces formidable opposition – for not being conservative enough. Activists on the right are attacking him for his vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the financial-market bailout initiative, and his willingness to work with Democrats like the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. They complain that he has voted to raise the debt ceiling 16 times. It's looking increasingly as if Hatch will face a Republican primary challenger next year – and could very well lose.

Hatch's troubles also say something about the way in which the nation's political needle has been moving. Over the past four decades – and more sharply over just the past few years – the geopolitical center of America has shifted rightward. It hasn't happened on all fronts – certainly, there are some areas where the country has clearly moved to the left, such as views on gay rights. But on a host of other issues, from guns to the role of government, the center of debate has edged closer to the conservative position, while activists on the right have moved even further out on the political spectrum.

The move has been most pronounced on fiscal matters. In Washington today, when it comes to the size of government, the debate isn't over whether to cut spending, but by how much. It's not over how much to raise taxes to help alleviate a fiscal shortfall, but whether any kind of tax increase – even on the wealthiest few – is valid.

"I don't remember, ever, in my 45 years in this business, the debate in Washington being [almost solely], 'What are we going to cut?' " says Sal Russo, a top strategist for the Tea Party Express and a longtime Republican consultant who worked as an aide to Gov. Ronald Reagan and advised Hatch's 2000 presidential bid. "Washington is different than anything I've seen in 45 years." More at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0731/America-s-big-shift-ri
ght day I see Hatch being "too liberal" is the day I realized we've really moved right! On a wider explanation:

Quote:

---

The American political system, since at least 1968, has been operating like a ratchet, and both parties -- Republicans and Democrats -- play crucial, mutually reinforcing roles in its operation.

The electoral ratchet permits movement only in the rightward direction. The Republican role is fairly clear; the Republicans apply the torque that rotates the thing rightward.

The Democrats' role is a little less obvious. The Democrats are the pawl. They don't resist the rightward movement -- they let it happen -- but whenever the rightward force slackens momentarily, for whatever reason, the Democrats click into place and keep the machine from rotating back to the left.

Here's how it works. In every election year, the Democrats come and tell us that the country has moved to the right, and so the Democratic Party has to move right too in the name of realism and electability. Gotta keep these right-wing madmen out of the White House, no matter what it takes.

(Actually, they don't say they're going to move to the right; they say they're going to move to the center. But of course it amounts to the same thing, if you're supposed to be left of center. It's the same direction of movement.)

So now the Democrats have moved to the "center." But of course this has the effect of shifting the "center" farther to the right.

Now, as a consequence, the Republicans suddenly don't seem so crazy anymore -- they're closer to the center, through no effort of their own, because the center has shifted closer to them. So they can move even further right, and still end up no farther from the "center" than they were four years ago.

In fact, the Democrats' rightward shift not only enables the Republicans to move farther right themselves; it actually compels them to do so, if they want to maintain their identity as the angry-white-guy party par excellence. (A great part of the Republicans' hysterical hatred of Bill Clinton arose from this cause: with Democrats like Clinton, who needs Republicans?)

The ratchet clicks: Nixon. The pawl holds: Carter. Click again: Reagan. And again: Bush Senior (and Iraq War I). The pawl holds: Clinton. Click: Bush Junior and Iraq War II; then another click, and it's Bush Junior triumphant, and God knows what to come.

Has the phrase "conspiracy theory" crept into your mind yet? Let me exorcize it. This is not a vast conspiracy. Nobody planned it out. What I am offering here is a structural explanation, not a conspiracy theory. There is a very important difference. Perhaps an analogy will help.

I assume that most people reading this book believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution. We often speak of the "function" or "purpose" of anatomical structures -- like your liver, or your thumb, or the hammerhead shark's odd cranium. But this way of talking doesn't commit us to believing that somebody planned these structures out. They were not contrived; they evolved.

The same holds true for the rightward ratchet in contemporary American politics. No Machiavelli schemed it into existence; it evolved. And it evolved for the same reason that anything evolves: it was useful. But useful to whom?

Not useful, certainly, to the millions of slightly, or more-than-slightly, left-of-center Americans who troop glumly to the polls every four years, hold their noses, and vote for the "lesser evil," even though they expect nothing from their candidate. Nor is it useful to the forty to fifty percent of Americans who don't bother to vote at all because neither candidate has managed to say anything that seems relevant to their lives,

I have a somewhat unlikely friend, a rich man in Chicago -- let's call him Al. Politics is not Al's profession, or even his first interest in life, but he is a well-connected, intelligent guy who has some pet political causes. I happened to ask him one year, during a Senatorial campaign, which candidate he and his friends were contributing to. Both candidates were quite friendly to his cause, and I thought he might have had a hard time deciding between them. Al looked at me as if I had just revealed unsuspected depths of idiocy. "Both, of course," he replied.

"Both?"

"Well, we're giving a little more to X [the Republican], naturally, 'cause he's got a better chance of winning. But we've given a lot to Y [the Democrat], too. In fact, I think we may be his biggest single bloc of support."

"But... which one do you want to win?"

He laughed. "It doesn't matter. We own 'em both."

The ratchet works really well for people like Al: and that's what keeps it in operation. It's not that he's an especially right-wing guy himself; in fact, he thinks of himself as a liberal. But the ratchet has lowered his taxes, gotten the unions out of his plant, fattened the budget of his wealthy suburban school district (and correspondingly starved the urban districts where his employees live). He thinks Bush is a contemptible idiot, and may even have voted for Kerry himself (though he's very reluctant to talk about it). But what's beyond question is that the ratchet has operated to his benefit.

Absent some countervailing pressure from what we'll call, for short, the Left, it's a foregone conclusion that the political system will evolve in a way that responds to the desires of the wealthy and powerful.

Over time, the Democratic Party has assumed the role of ensuring that the countervailing pressure from the Left doesn't happen. The party contains and neutralizes the Left, or what there is of it. Left voters are supposed to support the Democrat, come what may -- and it's amazing how many of us have internalized this supposed obligation -- but they are not allowed to have any influence on the party's policies, either during the campaign or during the Republicans' infrequent holidays in opposition. Al's employees mostly vote Democratic. They get nothing for their pains, but the Clinton years were as good for Al as the Reagan years.

But that's not the worst of it. The reluctant-Democrat voters -- like my neighbor Annie -- don't realize that their votes are not just wasted: they are positively helping drive the ratchet. The fact that these captive lefties can be counted on not to bolt enables the James Carvilles and the Al Froms and the other DLC "triangulators" to pursue their rightward course without fear of any consequences. Annie and all the other well-meaning dependable Democrats are supplying an essential part of the fuel that keeps the machine going.

Again: Nobody planned this. The Democratic Party fell into its role in the ratchet for historical reasons. But now that the machine is up and running and delivering the goods for the wealthy and powerful, there is certainly no reason for the wealthy and powerful to interfere with it. And there is no means by which the less wealthy, whose power is only in their numbers, can affect it at all -- except by depriving it of their support. More at http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/stopme/chapter02.html agree, and we'll have to agree to disagree on this point, but it's hard to imagine anyone believing we HAVEN'T moved right in the past few years at the very least.

Quote:

---

Anthony, the brain uses about 40%

---

Quote:

---

Blood Supply

% brain utilization of total resting oxygen = 20%
% blood flow from heart to brain = 15-20% (Kandel et al., 2000)
Blood flow through whole brain (adult) = 750-1000 ml/min
Blood flow through whole brain (adult) = 54 ml/100 g/min
Blood flow through whole brain (child) = 105 ml/100 g/min
Cerebral blood flow = 55 to 60 ml/100 g brain tissue/min
Cerebral blood flow (gray matter) = 75 ml/100 g brain tissue/min
Cerebral blood flow (white matter) = 45 ml/100 g brain tissue/min (Rengachary, S.S. and Ellenbogen, R.G., editors, Principles of Neurosurgery, Edinburgh: Elsevier Mosby, 2005)
Oxygen consumption whole brain = 46 cm3/min
Oxygen consumption whole brain = 3.3 ml/100 g/min
Blood flow rate through each carotid artery = 350 ml/min (Kandel et al., Principles of Neural Science, New York: McGraw Hill, 2000)
Blood flow rate through basilar artery = 100-200 ml/min (Kandel et al., 2000)
Diameter of vertebral artery = 2-3 mm
Diameter of common carotid artery (adult) = 6 mm
Diameter of common carotid artery (newborn) = 2.5 mm http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html#blood blood flow, or CBF, is the blood supply to the brain in a given time.[1] In an adult, CBF is typically 750 millitres per minute or 15% of the cardiac output.Wiki

---