... because they were targeting hippies and lefties:

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;

I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

--Pastor Martin Niemöller, on the silence of the majority when the Nazis started purging their enemies.

You're next, shooter, cat vs. something, et al. Maybe not now or tomorrow, but in an America no longer free, who knows?

...but we've decided that anyone who would actually express truly dissident views or do anything other than sit meekly and quietly in their homes are dirty trouble-makers up to no good...

We're supposed to be good, meek, obedient little consumers, not good citizens. The only decisions we are supposed to make is whether to buy a Tahoe or a Suburban. 'Cause in America we are Free, Baby--to decide whether to eat at McDonalds or Burger King, or buy an iPod or a Zune. But when we actually start excercising our rights and obligations as actual citizens, woe to us, as these raids show.

What were we exhorted to do after 9/11? Contribute? Serve? Sacrifice? Ration our consumption? No! Churchill offered his people nothing but "blood, toil, tears and sweat". Bush, who fancies himself the Churchill of our times, asked us to go shopping! The role of citizen is no longer ours, from lack of use.

I looks to me like Palin is negotiating from a position of strength. That gas is going nowhere if it is not developed right away, and its value will only go up. So what's the hurry? Why not get the best deal for her state? I like her a little better already.

As for all you Chavez detractors, Chavez has not done nearly as badly as you proclaim. Venezuelan citizens are more engaged in their own government than they ever were under the plutocratic two-party rule of the elite upper classes that preceded him. Chavez, in fact, is what happened when the two major political parties of Venezuela ignored the regular folks, which ought to be a lesson for our own political and economic elites.

It's hard to see how the outcome of any presidential (or other!) election in this country can be seen as fair. The obstacles in Obama's way are monumental when incidents like this one are SOP.

If Obama puts "they want you to pay attention to shallow sideshows to make you forget what they've done to the country over the last 8 years" into the consciousness of every voter by repeating this line again and again he will able to emulate Reagan and say "There you go again!" every time the McCain camp brews up their latest phony outrage. It can work!

How many are struck by the complete contradiction of these huge publicly funded bailouts with the position loudly and insistently advocated by these selfsame financial shining lights that we should privatize Social Security because it was "broke"? And now Social Security is the picture of rock solid stability compared with, say, AIG. (And who would have been running a privatized Social Security? Lehman Bros.? Merril Lynch?)

Can't have it both ways, neolibs. It's time to admit that economics is a human endeavor that permeates all our lives, not a natural phenomenon, and that as such society has the ability and right to regulate it and that government, as the legislating and executive arms of society, has the obligation to do so. Because over the last 3 decades the government (led by both parties) failed to do so we now have a situation where outfits like AIG are "too big to fail" because innocents will get hurt if they do, not just the greedy idiots who made stupid decision.

We need a return to Keynesian economics. We need to institute a far more progressive and fair tax structure to cut down the power, wealth and clout of the plutocrats. We need to ensure that corporations are never "too big to fail." We can do this by dusting off our anti-trust laws. No more "synergy." (BoA taking over Merrill Lynch is a step in the wrong direction in the long term.) And we need to ensure that the government functionaries who regulate these activities have no financial ties to the private financial world. In other words, no revolving door, no more fox guarding the hen-coop, etc.

And above all, since the taxpayers are now going to pay, fairness demands that those responsible for this fiasco also pay a steep and meaningful price for their irresponsibility.

Elephantman:

Who is the "Leach" in Gramm-Leach-Bliley? Why, it is none other than the defeated Iowa Congressman Jim Leach; a liberal Republican who has most recently become the Democrats' own version of Joe Lieberman, and who has endorsed Obama.

Wow dude. Guilt by association! So there is a Republican who actually likes Obama, so Obama automatically assumes responsibility for all of this Republican's sins, is that it?

Sorry, but this is sad stuff.

Elephantman, there is a marked difference between a "guilt by associaton" fallacy, and a true link.

Here's the deal. In your Obama example you did not show that Obama has anything to do with the GOP ex-congressman. According to your own account he is merely the passive recipient of an endorsement. Thus he cannot be held responsible for the ex-congressman's beliefs or past actions.

In the McCain situation, McCain is responsible for hiring Gramm. This is something McCain actively did. What Gramm believes is therefore relevant to what McCain believes; presumably he wouldn't have hired Gramm if he didn't agree with his views. Therefore using Gramm to criticize McCain is 100% legitimate.

If you cannot understand this distinction then you are either hopelessly ignorant or hopelessly dishonest. Pick your poison.