I don't know why speculation is villified by conservatives (although it's only vilified when SOMEONE ELSE does it to "their side"). And everyone I know who bashes Soros' speculative exploits tends to have an understanding of economics that I would categorize as "completely retarded."

Speculation (whether it involves currency, oranges, pork bellies, oil futures, etc.) is simply a matter of an intelligent person, appraising a situation, seeing an imbalance, and trading a security or commodity LEGALLY ON THE OPEN MARKET to take advantage of a price inequity.

Nothing wrong with that. Anyone can do it, and the shrewd will be successful at it.

So it seems Electro is a bit confused here... twisting speculation with a bunch of vague ideas about "economic warfare" or whatever.

So that's why the Chinese take a parochial view towards anyone who mucks with their economic well being.

I think everyone does, or at least they should. What exactly did Soros do in the Far East that was so dishonest? He was largely used as a scapegoat for the collapse by Asian finance ministers. He actually was not in a position to profit from the downswing, and LOST money because of it. The Thais caused the whole thing by pulling their peg to the US dollar.

The claim that Soros caused it has about as much credibility as their claim that the US was responsible for the Tsunami that hit the region a couple years later.

No suprise you'd buy into it though... I wouldn't put such petty sophistry beyond a INTELLECTUAL LIGHTWEIGHT like you.

Shows just how far we've come away from our original framework as a constitutional nation of laws.

The USA is an armed camp in all but name.

... an ad attacking Barack for voting against an extension of the death penalty will increase support for him regardless of whether the extension was redundant or not.

I read Greenberger's testimony and understand the nature of the current situation, where there is at least a quarter of the oil futures market outside of the purview of the CFTC.

My question though is what exactly are the methods by which speculation is driving oil prices up? I understand how the futures market works. I also understand the efficient market hypothesis that would seem to indicate that mere speculation, without some sort of affirmative manipulation, wouldn't be able to push the market away from where it should be for long. I.e., if speculation is adding a 1/3 to the true cost of oil, there would be an incentive for self-interested market participants to short futures, or bid them down to the market price.

SO, what exactly are "speculators" doing here that is sustaining oil prices well above theoretical prices (I think I read they should be around $80/barrel?) and sending them ever-higher? Or is this something we can't really know, since the markets are so opaque?

Is they sayin' prior to this here rulin, thems down in Louisiana was teachin' our childrens that they came from monkeys?

...was amusing. It starts off with typical ignorant and alarmist statements you'd expect:

What’s that sound? The thunder of left-wing lawyers and Gitmo detainees jumping up and down for joy at the Supreme Court’s ruling this morning. Brace yourselves. Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia warns that the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed” and concludes “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”

Chief Justice John Roberts says the rule of law and the American people have lost out–and with this ruling, we “lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.”

There's something deeply unserious about anyone who can claim with a straight face that preserving one of our Constitution's CORE PRINCIPLES represents a loss for the "rule of law."

Then the piece calms down a bit, as Malkin struggles to grasp exactly what the ruling held, with a "uh, ok, now what exactly is going on here?" tone.

Jonathan Adler: “As I (super-quickly) skim Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court, it appears to hold that Guantanamo detainees have habeas rights, that these rights can only be denied through a valid suspension of habeas rights (under the Suspension Clause of the Constitution), that the procedures created by the Detainee Treatment Act were not an adequate substitute for habeas, and therefore Section 7 of the Military Commission Act is an unconstitutional suspension of the detainees’ habeas rights. I’m sure I (and others) will have more to say about this case in subsequent posts.”

What more could you say about that? "Uh, so it looks like this Constitution thing has something about preserving civil rights, or something." It almost sounds like Beavis and Butt-head are writing this. She then returns time and time again to Roberts' dissent... as though the reasoning behind the majority opinion is laughable and unworthy of any sort of serious discussion. Well, duh, they were, like not friendly to Bush, or something.

Does this mean I can add you to the list of people who think Bush will declare martial (though he'll spell it marshall) law to stay in power?

I think he was implying that all the people currently seeking to extend executive power & limit the constitutional restraints on it, will be singing a different tune when President Obama lives in the White House.

As far as Bush declaring martial law... if he does that, it's civil war time. The decent men left in our military will be squaring off against the Neo-con politicians & Blackwater security. The rest of us will just have to hope the rest of the world sits idly by while we straighten ourselves out.

This is, of course, an absurd long stretch. I don't see it happening. Even the sleaziest among the neo-cons probably aren't ready for this. They made plenty of money through W. Bush's handouts for the Iraqi "Reconstruction," and are ready to retire and live the good life.