I lived and worked for many years in a well-known tax haven, and when I first got there I asked Why is this allowed to go on, when so much tax revenue is lost to the US government?. In fact, once at a cocktail party I asked the Premier of that tax-haven country that question.

The response I got was always that the US could clamp down if it wanted to, but that it suited powerful interests within the US to allow tax havens to do business.

Maybe it is just a question of times changing now.

For one thing, the individual states, which are mostly looking at massive revenue deficits now and in the near future, may well benefit if companies are forced to repatriate. For another, it looks as if the whole world economy may contract now as we are reaching the final decades of the era of subterranean oil as a fuel for power generation and transportation.

Maybe the good times are rolling to a stop?

This is how our celebrity gossip culture works. Supermarket tabloids pay the domestic staff of entertainers money for details of their drug, sex, and personal affairs, and the public swallows everything.

Now Sonia Sotomayor's name is in the public arena, and most of us are completely unqualified to judge whether she is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, but all of us can enjoy gossip about whether she is grumpy or frumpy.

Welcome to People's Republic of America where everyone's opinion is born equal and happily pursued.

However, one has to hope that the President, those who advise him, and those who have the power to confirm or reject appointments such as this have neither the time nor the inclination to read this crap.

... they are talking about cutting our salaries by 5% next year due to budget shortfalls--and almost certainly will do this.

But, although I know many dedicated and talented people, I haven't heard of anyone planning to quit. This is because people don't quit if they believe that the work they are doing is of value.

And if DOJ attorneys were advising the President that:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession

and

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever" may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict. Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies.

means that it is OK to starve and chill people, throw them into walls, and water-board them so as to get information, then one only has to wonder how frickin' smart these lawyers were.

No, these arguments in favor of pardoning the torturers are being manufactured in exactly the same way as the initial arguments in favor of torture, and for that reason alone they should be disregarded.

In fact, in my view, there is a strong case to argue that those prominent citizens who are currently urging the government not to prosecute the torturers should themselves be subject to prosecution for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

... would be a good nominee.

Help wanted with law degree, must live easy commute to central DC. Knowledge of politics a plus. Lifelong position. Long vacations. Childcare available during session. The successful candidate should get on well with others and not be too bossy. Must have good decision-making skills and an ability to understand how laws affect ordinary people. Salary according to government scale. Background check and references required. Apply online at www.SCOTUS.gov

... is a highly technical business, requiring special skills.

Since nearly all of us are not qualified to judge who might be a good judge, it is much easier to go by other factors, such as whether he/she shaves her armpits, uses a deodorant, or has children.

But these factors are just as irrelevant as they would be if we were appointing an auto mechanic.

But since we have started out examining her "qualifications", does anyone have the low down on her divorce, ob-gyn history, and any prior lovers? Has she used contraception or abstinence to avoid pregnancy? Has she ever had an abortion? What is her favorite kind of torture?

... to carry heroin in your baggage in third world countries. Presumably the idea was to bring the heroin from the third world to the first world for the benefit of first world consumers.

Whenever a third world country makes an effort to deter this evil trade, usually at the instigation of a first world country, and a first world citizen gets arrested, then we get these protests.

The trouble is that the people who are caught are NEVER guilty. They never step forward and say Yes, I took money for doing this, or Yes, I did it for my lover. Now take me to the gallows!

The heroin is ALWAYS planted in their baggage by persons unknown.

Ms. Orobator's plight is a very sad one, but it doesn't mean that she has a right to a Western style trial on Court TV, though perhaps Nancy Grace or Marcia Clark can fly out there to represent her.

In general I am opposed to the death penalty, but one suspects that in such cases it must be somewhat effective as a deterrent to those who want to get rich by carrying a suitcase full of heroin. Thus the more publicity the better.