tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post8050716303014890674..comments2023-11-05T03:12:10.925-06:00Comments on Renegade Eye: Obama's Inaugural Call for "National Unity"Frank Partisanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-6136093995139203492009-02-02T21:37:00.000-06:002009-02-02T21:37:00.000-06:00A lot of good points, Larry. I didn't realize you ...A lot of good points, Larry. I didn't realize you were such an old codger. I guess my first clue should have been you knew pagans that could be your grandkids.<BR/><BR/>Honestly, I don't have a clue what the answers are. I only know I don't trust any group to wield power with integrity on a long-term basis. Whether that be workers or "bourgeois", one thing they all have in common is, they are people, and I know what people are capable of, good and bad. <BR/><BR/>As long as there's sufficient checks and balances, then damage can be kept at a minimum. Where political parties are concerned, as far as I'm concerned they exist to keep checks and balances to a minimum, so I don't trust them-any of them. They all tend to be people, and people tend to breed.SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-26080540600453010242009-02-02T16:10:00.000-06:002009-02-02T16:10:00.000-06:00"If you use government power to break up large cor..."If you use government power to break up large corporations."<BR/><BR/>Taking away their privileges is not using governmental power. If you eliminate the government's ability to use its power to create, promote and protect corporations, you are also limiting the power of the state. The anti-trust laws were moderate reforms designed to maintain corporate capitalism. They could have easily pulled the plug on them by eliminating their privileges, but they didn't, as the liberal reformers had no interest in really changing the system. Contrary to stupid right-wingers (and you are NOT one of these) liberals are the bulwark of capitalism, its greatest defense and are no more socialistic than Ronnie Reagan. (But let the righties think that. Good to have our rulers fighting among themselves.)Larry Gambonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04965037776214596919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-86537392672346510582009-02-02T15:58:00.000-06:002009-02-02T15:58:00.000-06:00I should add, Pagan, that one of the finest manife...I should add, Pagan, that one of the finest manifestations in history of self-government was the New England town meeting. Here the populace met and discussed the affairs of the own and elected a group of recallable Selectmen to carry out the tasks. The city of Boston was run on these lines up until the 1820s or so. Each neighborhood had its neighborhood meeting to carry out its affairs and selected a delegate to the larger Boston Council. It was abolished because the wealthy wanted to centralize political power in their own hands.Larry Gambonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04965037776214596919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-50636610229765792082009-02-02T15:28:00.000-06:002009-02-02T15:28:00.000-06:00Ren is right, Pagan. I have no time for that sort ...Ren is right, Pagan. I have no time for that sort of nonsense. I am 63 years old, not 16. And while I can appreciate that riots like in Greece are a manifestation of popular frustration, this is not the way that change comes about. Change comes from the grass roots, from neighborhood associations, trade unions and a host of other associations. The sort of parties you refer to, are actually an obstacle to popular power. The real function of a socialist or anarchist organization is to encourage people to take the initiative, to encourage self-government and to combat the groups which would seek to take over, mis-direct and control the popular struggle.(This, and not dogmatism or sectarianism, is the reason for our hostile comments about Maoists and Stalinists, as their goal is to control the populace, not to encourage popular power.)Larry Gambonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04965037776214596919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-61796900219877168862009-02-01T02:23:00.000-06:002009-02-01T02:23:00.000-06:00Nanc: No surprise there.Larry G: I think you are i...Nanc: No surprise there.<BR/><BR/>Larry G: I think you are in a sense defining the state.<BR/><BR/>The bailout package wasn't adhoc. It was planned for months.<BR/><BR/>Even in a country like Venezuela, a governor or judge, will defend a corporate interest as a priority. In Venezuela two workers were killed by police last week.<BR/><BR/>Pagan: I'm not sure what larry would say about what I've been thinking. The great revolutionaries were thinkers and generals, not activists like todays activists.<BR/><BR/>I couldn't picture Trotsky at sit-in, at a parlimentarian's office.<BR/><BR/>In another words, I agree the fetus pix don't work.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-42815776141802090052009-01-31T22:01:00.000-06:002009-01-31T22:01:00.000-06:00I don't mean to be coming off like an apologist fo...I don't mean to be coming off like an apologist for big business, because I am not that at all. I think they should be reined in to a very great extent more than what they are. But you have to be careful with how you go about doing that, with what laws you use and how you implement them, because you are setting a very serious precedent. <BR/><BR/>If you use government power to break up large corporations, then you had better make sure you are on solid ground. We have anti-trust laws, and we have notable exceptions to those laws (major league baseball is one example of of this). Aside from those anti-trust laws, which should be rigidly enforced, what can you do?<BR/><BR/>I've already told you, people have to change their habits, their lifestyles, in fact they have to change their hearts. This rampant consumerism is what is driving this. Nobody is holding a gun to people's heads and forcing them to spend money that in a good many cases they don't even have to spend. The government isn't doing that, nor is business, though they go out of their way to promote and encourage it. <BR/><BR/>Get with the program, Gambone, I thought you and Ren were all about giving power to the people. What do you think you are going to accomplish taking a few people out on the streets shouting with bullhorns.<BR/><BR/>Reason it out in your head. How many people have changed their minds about having an abortion because some right-wing fanatic shoves a picture of a chopped up fetus in their face. <BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that you do anything anywhere near that disgusting or reprehensible (though I can somehow see you throwing a pie with horse semen marangue in Donald Trump's face), I'm just saying that these kinds of things have limited value at best-and that's usually limited to entertainment value. <BR/><BR/>If you want to do something constructive to change the system, start a movement to discourage people from profligate spending and dependence on credit cards. If people were more frugal with their money some of these behemoth corporations would collapse from the weight of their own debt. What ones survived would have to adopt to a more viable business model that was more human and community friendly. <BR/><BR/>I know it might not quite have the dramatic appeal of burning flags and blocking street traffic, but the difference is, my way might actually accomplish something.<BR/><BR/>You're addicted to politics still and are still hooked on the notion of political solutions by way of organized party activities. Me, I believe in people power. <BR/><BR/>As Madison told Jefferson once "your people, sir, are a great beast".<BR/><BR/>He was never more right than when he uttered those words, and it's time to rouse that beast. Screw the government, and screw political parties-all of them.SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-65926822140154895512009-01-31T20:40:00.000-06:002009-01-31T20:40:00.000-06:00No, Pagan, I do not believe "one size fits all." ...No, Pagan, I do not believe "one size fits all." In some things an economy of scale is what is more efficient. Such as a credit union federation. (The Dejardins C.U in Quebec is worth $120 billion and has 40,000 employees.) Some situations - like a trans-continental rail road it is inevitable. But the problem is when this model is applied generally - as we see with the contemporary corporation. And while the reason why the corporate "big business" model is so generalized is complex, it in the last instance, is rooted in state involvement in the economy. Again, Carson deals with this at great length...Larry Gambonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04965037776214596919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-69460700885330652802009-01-31T19:34:00.000-06:002009-01-31T19:34:00.000-06:00i'd rather hold hands with satan himself.i'd rather hold hands with satan himself.nanchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08809768490674110768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-56914440496008542372009-01-31T17:35:00.000-06:002009-01-31T17:35:00.000-06:00Pagan: It is reported that Obama will oppose limit...Pagan: It is reported that Obama will oppose limits on compensation to CEO's receiving bailout $$, because it'll discourage other corporations from applying.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-27308849259163876462009-01-31T13:26:00.000-06:002009-01-31T13:26:00.000-06:00I'm all for regulating big business and for mainta...I'm all for regulating big business and for maintaining a level playing field to whatever extent is necessary and appropriate. I just don't believe in dismantling big business. You come across as somebody that wants to totally destroy big business. I may be reading you wrong, but if that's what you stand for, that's just not advisable.<BR/><BR/>They should have to conform to certain laws and guidelines. For example, they shouldn't be allowed to dump products in order to run smaller companies out of business. But that's actually more of a problem with foreign companies who do business in America than it is with American companies. The Wal-Mart phenomenon is actually fed by foreign products. I'm not a hater of Wal-Mart by the way, I just want them to have to act responsibly. There was a time not too long in past when they destroyed the economies of several small towns with their business practices.<BR/><BR/>It's a tough nut to crack, because there is not really a political entity in the United States that will rein them in. The Republicans will in an off-hand sort of way, because they are traditionally the party of small business as much as they are of major corporations. The Democrats, up until the advent of the Democratic Leadership Council, openly hated small business. They were never against big business, because they knew they had to have them for the taxes they could never get from the small business owner, who they saw as an impediment to implementation of many of their policies.<BR/><BR/>I still say the best thing to do would be to eliminate all business taxes, on big and small business, but apply certain regulations. Then simply tax individuals at the same base rate, say twenty-five percent. The economy would grow, jobs would flourish, and tax receipts would still come flowing in. Or, establish a kind of national sales tax. Anything would be better than what we have now. <BR/><BR/>Plus eliminating taxes and just applying appropriate regulations would result in significant decreases in say health care.<BR/><BR/>By and large though you have to have some leeway in allowances for big business, you can't just eliminate them. Why would you want to, as long as they are brought in line and made to act responsibly. Even during the worse of times they add more to the economy than they take away from it, but of course that's just my opinion. It's just hard to see the positive aspects during those periods when the more negative are so glaringly obvious.SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-87250225214786927692009-01-31T10:10:00.000-06:002009-01-31T10:10:00.000-06:00"The problem, again, is big government"The point t..."The problem, again, is big government"<BR/><BR/>The point that I have been making all along is that "Big Govt." and "Big Business" are inter-related and always have been. "Free market capitalism" is an oxymoron. The system is statist from its very inception and at the same time capitalism encourages the growth of government to feed itself. To complain about "Big govt." and avoid dealing with "Big business" is like complaining about alcohol poisoning, yet not cutting down on your boozing.Larry Gambonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04965037776214596919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-2082586050335457112009-01-31T01:34:00.000-06:002009-01-31T01:34:00.000-06:00Ren-I agree with you up to a point, but I have to ...Ren-<BR/><BR/>I agree with you up to a point, but I have to point out that with the proper regulations this would not have amounted to much more than a worse than usual economic downturn, maybe worse than most, but still not insurmountable. <BR/><BR/>The people doing the smashing in front of our eyes are the people that are acting like they genuinely think they are helping but in all likelihood are just making matters worse throwing more good money after bad, into what is turning out to be a bottomless pit, only because they insist they should keep digging it.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, this would be just another in a long string of business cycle adjustments. A bad one, to be sure, but not nearly as bad as it is and could very easily get yet. <BR/><BR/>By the way, shouldn't overproduction result in lower prices? The problem is still based mainly on energy costs and exacerbated by the housing market and the greedy manipulations of those markets, especially in the sub-prime mortgage sector, which by the way is one bizarre example of a combination of the wrong kind of regulations paired with not enough of the right kind of regulations (if any).<BR/><BR/>The problem, again, is big government? Why? Because its a beast that needs constant feeding, just like this goose I saw once on television that somebody had shot an arrow through. It ended up dying from an infection, but up until that time, there it was waddling on the ground eating constantly. Whenever somebody tried to approach it it run away. <BR/><BR/>That is a perfect symbol of our damn government. It doesn't want to be fixed, it just wants to keep prices inflated, because with inflated taxes comes the inflated revenues it needs to feed off of. They are running in circles now just like that goose, trying their damndest to keep on eating and determined not to let anybody get to them that might help them.<BR/><BR/>Of course the difference is when that goose died it affected nobody except the feelings of the more sensitive among us. When this beast that is the federal government succumbs to its own self-inflicted wounds its going to take us all with it.<BR/><BR/>SrslySecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-78490767405447442672009-01-31T00:22:00.000-06:002009-01-31T00:22:00.000-06:00Larry G: Where patents are really out of control, ...Larry G: Where patents are really out of control, is in biology. Patents have been a cause of scientists discouraged from sharing research on issues dealing with life and healthcare. It is slowing vaccine development.<BR/><BR/>Farmer: Keynesianism has a formula it uses, to determine amount of spending. It doesn't work against stagflation. Freemarketers use borrowing percentages. When the percentge got to 0%, you were out of the game.<BR/><BR/>Pagan: What you are saying, is shattering in front of your eyes.<BR/><BR/>What you are saying about competition, and regulation was true decades ago. A system based on supply and demand, defies regulation. With more regulation the crisis would have been less severe, but it still would have happened. It is a crisis of overproduction, more productivity combined with less ability to buy things.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-42093330547867299922009-01-30T21:22:00.000-06:002009-01-30T21:22:00.000-06:00Ever hear of royalties? I have nothing against rew...Ever hear of royalties? I have nothing against rewarding someone for inventing something of value. But patents create monopolies and are one of the most corrupting influences of the state upon the economy.<BR/><BR/>By the way, my suggested reading has little to do with that question, but has much to do about corporate efficiency, worker coops, management. The other questions you raised. If you are really interested in those issues do read Carson.Larry Gambonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04965037776214596919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-14012597074538474822009-01-30T15:06:00.000-06:002009-01-30T15:06:00.000-06:00Oh great so now we're going to do away with patent...Oh great so now we're going to do away with patents. Just what the world needs, a green light to rip off other people's creative work. I guess we can expect copyright laws to be done away with next. Why not, it's basically the same principle. No thank you. All the libertarian treatises and expert opinions in the world won't change my mind on that. I consider myself actually a fairly open-minded guy, but on that, my mind is closed as tight as a steel drum, and that is a great big NO!!!<BR/><BR/>Now if you want to discuss people buying up patents and then shelving them to prevent their making their way to the marketplace, we can have some common ground there, but that's about the most I'll go along with.<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I'm going to invent a sure-fire way to get automobiles that are stuck in the mud free and clear, or out of a ditch, without having to call a wrecker service, then I'm going to sit back and watch some Yabo from Fukyustan sell it and me not make a dime from it-NOT!!!SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-17850286448911133592009-01-30T13:56:00.000-06:002009-01-30T13:56:00.000-06:00Competition is not what creates giant corporations...Competition is not what creates giant corporations, it is rather the restriction of competition. Vast top-down authoritarian hierarchies are actually highly inefficient and need government support in the form of privileging laws and regulations to exist. One can get an economy of scale through federating rather than authoritarian vertical integration.<BR/>Worker management is actually more efficient and more innovative. (It shouldn't take much thinking to figure out why.) Google "Mondragon Cooperative" Google "Worker cooperatives Emelia Romagna"<BR/>Microsoft became a monopoly through patents - a govt. granted privilege.<BR/>Anyway, this is too vast a subject to deal with here. Right now I am reading "Organizational Theory - A Libertarian Perspective" by Kevin Carson - an excellent work which deals in great depth with the questions you raise. It is available from Amazon. I suggest you get a copy, study it then tell me what you think.Larry Gambonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04965037776214596919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-25886379383094339102009-01-30T12:39:00.000-06:002009-01-30T12:39:00.000-06:00You can't end domination without involving governm...You can't end domination without involving government, for the simple fact that otherwise, the company that adopts the best and most efficient business model will always come out on top, whether that's a worker owned cooperative, a private enterprise or limited corporation, a publicly traded company, or a quasi-governmental affiliate. The others will have one of two choices-adapt or remain marginalized (at best).<BR/><BR/>Banks promote capitalism by making loans to companies that they feel will be successful, even if it is a gamble. In moderately good times, they can take that chance, because they really can't lose. If the borrower business succeeds, they make their money back with interest. If the business ultimately fails, the bank gets the property, which they can resell.<BR/><BR/>In really bad times, though, it's not that easy, and credit dries up, which means its that much harder to borrow the needed money for expenses and sometimes to even make payroll.<BR/><BR/>So what are you going to do, reform the banking system to somehow enforce favoritism on a business model that might or might not fail?<BR/><BR/>Believe me, if a bank sees a chance for it to work, they will loan the money, after all that's what they are in business for, they make money in part by loaning money, and in part through the interest they make in investments. If interest rates are through the roof, then they make money in savings accounts. If interest rates are low, then their best money is made in loans.<BR/><BR/>So in the sense that all countries have a national currency and are responsible for minting it and releasing it through the banks, I guess to that extent they are responsible for creating capitalism, but not really. They just facilitate it using the banks and moderate it through regulations, but capitalism is actually created by the people, because its a reflection of a people's creativity on the one hand and their basic needs on the other.<BR/><BR/>One aspect supplies the goods the rest of society needs. Shit, this has been going forever, artificially creating a "working class" and giving them total control over the means of production, even if regulated, is imposing limitations on a society that will trickle down into all aspects of that society. It will limit job creation, it will limit production, it will limit GDP, all to substandard levels.<BR/><BR/>Does anybody really honestly believe Microsoft would have hired as many people as it did and contributed as much to technology and the overall economy if they had been compelled to function under the limitations of this kind of business model. If you do believe that, please send me some of what you're smoking, it must be some killer shit.<BR/><BR/>Fair and fairly regulated capitalism and competition is the ONLY way to go in the long run. It's the only kind of business model that can grow and prosper. Anything else with the kinds of limitations you describe, self-imposed or otherwise, will never grow beyond the point of hiring a few dozen individuals and will remain for the most part regional concerns.<BR/><BR/>Show me a worker owned cooperative that can grow into an entity the size of Exxon and I'll be impressed. Failing that, can one even aspire to be successful on the national level?<BR/><BR/>If they can not, and I am reasonably certain they can not, then where is the money going to come from for research and development, for funding and testing new inventions and improvements? They will all pool their resources for the common good, I suppose? Under whose direction and impetus? Why? Why should they? How could they? <BR/><BR/>Translation-it won't work.SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-51854010839948878152009-01-30T11:16:00.000-06:002009-01-30T11:16:00.000-06:00The attempts to regulate capital came after the de...The attempts to regulate capital came after the development of huge corporations. These regulations were in most cases supported by those corporations to minimize competition. But government, prior to the regulatory phase played the major role in the development of capitalism. The modern corporation grows out of the railroad building binge - financed by state and federal governments and by the advent of corporate law which gave the corporation privileges. (I could take state involvement right back to the origins of capitalism, but for the sake of brevity won't.) If interested read the relevant chapters on primitive accumulation in "Mutualist Political Economy" found at mutualist.org<BR/><BR/>Socialism is, as Big Bill Haywood once remarked, "a simple concept that anyone could understand." (paraphrased) It is simply the workers owning and controlling the important sources of wealth production, not a thing to be imposed from above. It already exists in embryo with cooperatives. I would boil it down even further to two words, "ending domination."Larry Gambonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04965037776214596919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-73084221211651695182009-01-30T09:58:00.000-06:002009-01-30T09:58:00.000-06:00Ren-You need to write a book. That way, by the tim...Ren-<BR/><BR/>You need to write a book. That way, by the time there finally is a socialist society, people might know who you were.SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-35535060831309357252009-01-30T07:33:00.000-06:002009-01-30T07:33:00.000-06:00...and Pagan...you're 100% spot on. It's time the......and Pagan...you're 100% spot on. It's time the corporate <A HREF="http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/swift/jonathan/s97g/" REL="nofollow">Struldbrugg's</A> had their birthmarks removed. But we shouldn't do that just to turn control of the economy over to the government projectors at the Grand Academy of Lagado.<BR/><BR/>Of course, I'm also sick of the Yahoo's. It's getting hard to raise Houyhnhnms anymore.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-27988321938133467972009-01-30T07:27:00.000-06:002009-01-30T07:27:00.000-06:00It killed it alright Ren... but only because our g...It killed it alright Ren... but only because our government needs to shield the idiots whom they subsidized and encouraged into buying too much house with ARMs from defaulting.<BR/><BR/><I>For socialism its a matter of specific conditions and leadership.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes. Wartime. Period.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-81880022021802337952009-01-30T01:12:00.000-06:002009-01-30T01:12:00.000-06:00FJ: When interest rates went to 0% last December, ...FJ: When interest rates went to 0% last December, that killed Reaganite solutions.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-71771179859016199952009-01-30T00:49:00.000-06:002009-01-30T00:49:00.000-06:00Pagan: Keynesianism can't respond when inflation i...Pagan: Keynesianism can't respond when inflation increases. The free market people have no answer for depression.<BR/><BR/>There are certain times, when masses of people, enter the political theater. For socialism its a matter of specific conditions and leadership.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-83138490569217256632009-01-29T20:54:00.000-06:002009-01-29T20:54:00.000-06:00Did the federal government ever really regulate ca...Did the federal government ever really regulate capitalism prior to the New Deal other than through the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and through tariffs on imported goods? I guess there was some regulation of the railroads, probably because it involved crossing state lines. So there was some, but not like since the New Deal.<BR/><BR/>Which, I still say some regulation is good and appropriate, but too much can be a real buzz kill. It takes some finesse to strike just the right balance.<BR/><BR/>The irony is many large corporations welcome and even encourage regulations. They don't say so in so many words, but I've always thought this was to run their smaller competitors out of business, which it would certainly do in a great many cases.<BR/><BR/>Of course once small and mid-sized businesses are out the door, there goes your basic American Dream out the window, and its bye bye capitalism, hello neo-feudalism.<BR/><BR/>Once that happens then that might lead to an eventual reaction that could herald a socialist system, which is exactly what it would take, life under a burdensome and oppressive system where socialism offers hope of advancement.<BR/><BR/>It's foolish to think people in large numbers would give up a system that offers hope for one that offers less, and we just aren't to the point yet where socialism offers more, at least in the minds of most.SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-69267022794210378122009-01-29T20:19:00.000-06:002009-01-29T20:19:00.000-06:00"Economic justice" is the Left's mantra, remember?..."Economic justice" is the Left's mantra, remember? And all that represents is the government picking ALL the winners and losers...<BR/><BR/>I kinda liked it when the governments role was to maintain an even playing field. After all, the "pursuit of happiness" is all about winning the game...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com