The 25th annual World Food Day, marked on 16 October, was an occasion whose arrival and passing received little media attention or governmental fanfare. Evidently, much of the world media and governments are consumed with an economic crisis of epic proportions, which is perceived in the US as the worst such upheaval since the Great Depression. In the rest of the world, it's depicted as the worst economic crisis in recent memory or, as the BBC termed it, "the most tumultuous times on record in the global financial markets."

There is hardly any disagreement that Wall Street's woes are manmade. Regardless of what terminology one wishes to apply (miscalculations, greed, or wholesale failure in the US capitalist system, rooted in the economic philosophies of Milton Friedman and his ultra laissez- faire approach), the fact is the US economic crisis is not a fleeting phenomenon and no quick fixes can provide a magic remedy.

“Just because we can’t sell shares in nature doesn’t mean it has no value.” Thomas Friedman

“Big Oil and King Coal may have armies of lobbyists, lawyers, foreign diplomats and even military advisors, but Americans know that we can do better for ourselves, our country, and our fellow humans. As the writer Arundhati Roy says, ‘Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.’” Michael Brune

“Reversing global warming will require a World War II level of mobilization. It is the work of tens of millions, not hundreds of thousands. Such a shift will require massive support at the social, cultural, and political levels. And in an increasingly nonwhite nation, that means enlisting the passionate involvement of millions of so-called minorities—as consumers, inventors, entrepreneurs, investors, buzz marketers, voters, and workers.” Van Jones

Two seconds of radio news was enough — suddenly the 2008 presidential campaign collapsed around me in an unrecognizable heap of consumer politics as I ate breakfast.

“Redistribution of the wealth,” John the Candidate was saying. “That’s one of the tenets of . . . socialism.”

This was maybe the ten thousandth time I’d been whacked with that and similar Cold War-era words in the last couple weeks, and the surrealism buildup — the sheer weight of all this empty rhetoric and mock horror, the waste of money and air time and newsprint, the overwork of my own revulsion mechanism, but most of all my exhausted sense of urgency that the nation has serious troubles that need immediate attention — came out in a groan of paralyzing despair.

Enough, enough, enough, enough, enough. Electoral politics at the presidential level — excuse me, this is the most important reassessment of national and global direction taking place on the planet right now — has deteriorated, or at least half-deteriorated (the Karl Rove half), to the level of impulse snack sales at the supermarket checkout aisle.

A critical US Supreme Court decision against GOP voter meddling in Ohio may prove temporary.

In its on-going campaign to inject chaos and confusion into the voting process, the GOP has sued Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, demanding that she release to county boards of elections lists of registered voters whose information does not precisely match government data bases. The right to vote of such registrants---by most estimates as many as 200,000 in Ohio alone---could then be challenged on a case-by-case basis. George W. Bush was awarded Ohio's 20 electoral votes in 2004 with an official margin of less than 119,000 votes, though more than 100,000 votes cast in that election remain uncounted.

The 200,000 voters targeted by the Republican Party were all registered since January 1, 2008. News source estimates suggest 75-80% of these newly-registered voters are Obama supporters.

I spent the past couple of days hanging out with Vincent Bugliosi who wants Bush killed for his crimes, following a fair trial of course, and who openly pushes the supposed need for retribution while disclaiming much interest in deterrence or restoration. Then I watched Oliver Stone's new movie, "W," which depicts Bush as a poor, sad fool who's just been trying his hardest to please his daddy all these years. If I have to choose, I'm on Stone's side.

I think Bush has been far more sadistic and cynical than Stone's depiction, but I think Stone's work opposes the spread of sadism and cynicism in his audience, while Bugliosi plays to and encourages both. At the same time, I think Bugliosi is doing more good for the world than Stone, because Stone is simply making movies, while Bugliosi is attempting to prosecute Bush for his crimes. The need to prosecute Bush, to my mind, has nothing to do with whether or not I like the man. He needs to be punished in order to deter future presidents from committing similar abuses. Is that too abstract a motivation to build a popular movement around? Is it necessary to play on people's hatred for Bush in