Didn't we know that somehow he'd end up with an Obamajob? Talk about Third Way: He's gonna be in charge of making government run more efficiently - the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Kind of overhaul a whole bunch of regulating agencies. He's a great friend of U. Chicago economist Richard Thaler - y'know, you really have to be careful around those UC folks. We're now learning that even Obama seems to be tainted by his affiliation with that hotbed of rightwing economics and law. Sunstein and Thaler wrote a book on how government can "nudge" us dummies into making the right choices for our own good - that should scare anyone who knows the role the University of Chicago has played in our legal and economic meltdown.

But really - Sunstein : regulation :: Cheney : Constitution.

Aren’t there experts in government regulation who DON’T favor amnesty for corporations that break the law? Given Sunstein’s support for the FISA law that gave amnesty to the telecoms for illegal eavesdropping on Americans, I have to wonder just how committed he is to regulation of corporations on the public’s behalf.

Another clue as to Sunstein’s true regulatory colors: He supported the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Roberts happens to adhere to a strongly regressive interpretation of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution - the effect of such an interpretation being nothing less than a race to the bottom as states compete to attract business by offering the least regulation.

This view is a reversion to the ultra-conservative notion of government regulation that ruled the country until the deepest days of the Great Depression - bluntly put, it’s the view that gave us that depression. And we see now that it was a gradual reinstatement of this anti-regulation position, discredited 70 years ago, that has once again visited economic disaster on the country.

Finally, Sunstein’s close association with Richard Thaler alone should be reason for deep cynicism. Thaler is a BMOC at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business - you know, where the “Free Market” is a god who can do no wrong, and which gave us that god’s favorite priest, Milton Friedman, whose championship of deregulation started us on this disastrous economic decline.

Somehow the idea of Sunstein, using his regulatory vision, guiding us “toward better choices in health, wealth, and happiness” - most likely by deciding which information and regulations are good for us and which are bad for us - makes me want to run the other way real fast.

It's critical that Obama -- and the rest of the political establishment -- hear loud objections, not reverential silence, when he flirts with ideas like the ones he suggested on Sunday. This dynamic prevails with all political issues. Where political pressure comes only from one side, that is the side that wins -- period.

This is a no-brainer on the face of it, but it also happens to be exactly what Obama himself has called for repeatedly - strong opinions expressed strongly and frequently - in his own cabinet and among his advisers. He's often said that he doesn't want people around him to tell him what they think he wants to hear; rather, he wants debate and challenge. It's irrational to think that he wants to limit that debate to the inner circles of his own administration.

Here's a strong message for Obamaphiles: He doesn't want you to shut up when you disagree with him. Silencing yourselves and trying to silence others is nothing less than disrespecting the man you profess to admire. He's a grownup; he can take criticism; he expects it; he wants it; it comes with the territory. He's got a lot more self-confidence than you're giving him credit for, and anyone with the self-confidence to attain the presidency in the unprecedented way Obama has is someone who has the self-confidence to have his opinions and knowledge challenged, strongly and repeatedly.

And in fact, he depends on challenge and debate to improve his own understanding and performance. That is the mark of a mature individual and a true leader. That's why I'm among those who have been raising holy hell about some of his decisions since he hit the presidential campaign trail.

Truer words were never spoken: "Where political pressure comes only from one side, that is the side that wins -- period."

So Friedman's amorality reaches a new peak - or is that a new abyss? He has only one question about the Israeli attack on Gaza: What is the goal?

It's a basic moral axiom that the ends do not justify the means. It's pretty much a no-brainer: Immoral means invalidate the morality of an end. Not only is the goal irreparably changed, but it is made immoral by the means used to achieve it.

Thus in his world unarmed civilians are a "logical' target for the Israeli army, and it's OK to call them "collateral casualties." Their lives are a fair price to pay for "educating" Hamas.

That is pure sociopathy, and it's appalling. I'd suggest he look at himself in the mirror tomorrow morning while he repeats out loud, "I think it's OK for an army to kill unarmed civilians for the purpose of educating the enemy," but I doubt that advice would do any good given the degree to which he's abandoned any sense of moral rectitude.