Yes, it is, especially since our incarceration rate dwarfs that of other nations, and the business of prisons has become a huge money maker.

In a Great Leap Backward, American politicians have also repealed two federal laws (the Hawes Cooper Act and the Ashurst-Sumner Act) that virtually outlawed prison labor, making it a felony to move prison-made goods across state boundaries. Stamping state license plates for cars was generally acceptable, but these Acts tried to end the leasing out of prisoners to private companies - they tried to eliminate prison-plantations and "factories with fences."

In the 1970s, a Supreme Court Justice, Warren Burger, proselytized for more leeway as to what kinds of "projects" prisoners could work on. Before too long, Congress amended the laws, and by 1990 it was permissible for prisoners to produce products entering the stream of interstate commerce. Many of the largest corporations in America have taken advantage of prison labor in what might be called "Operation Sweatshop."

Amazingly, on http://www.correctionscorp.com/ there is a separate section for "investors."

(from http://www.populistamerica.com/incarceration_nation_the_rise_of_a_prison_industrial_complex)

The "good" that this system does in terms of rehabilitation can be measured by the fact that within three years of being released, 67% of the exprisoners are rearrested and 52% are actually reincarcerated.

the idea, if I have it right, of a monarchical leader and a young military hero, bound up in some kind of mystical/religious wrapping, seems pretty disturbing to me. Considering that I see people all googly-eyed about Obama, many of whom are making any excuse they can when it comes to his continuation of certain Bush policies, I don't really want to see that kind of antidemocratic tendency and hero worship represented onscreen. I'm not in the mood--probably just me.

But McShane is great. Any one see Lovejoy? A fun show, in which McShane had lines like:

Now is the winter of our discontent

Made glorious summer by this loin of pork.

He said to pick a couple of these fat cats at random and blow them up at halftime at the Superbowl, to make an example of them, or hang them at the Stock Exchange. He pointed out that it would not be "technically legal," but the results for the nation, in shocking us into acting decently, would be worth it. Moreover, he said that "it's not like collateral damage isn't built into our assessment of things."

It is kind of amazing that such satire has lost its ability to shock, seeing that, as Glenn points out here, we are a "nation of laws" only when it is convenient to the powerful and we use terms like "collateral damage" when children in Iraq have their limbs blown off.

There is a vast difference in the UAW and automakers negotiating and agreeing upon contract changes and a political administration imposing its desire upon two parties to an existing contract. In fact, these are two opposites - one is negotiated - the other imposes by fiat.

Your columnists/writers should really attempt to at least have some understanding of legal/moral/ethical principles before setting forth such attempts to influence the populace.

You should really attempt to have at least some understanding of the workings of power before setting forth such attempts at critique.

If you call what happened to the union workers a fair and free "negotiation," you may not have a good understanding of the real disparities in power between corporations and workers or of the myriad ways that corporations can exercise their power and influence and put crushing pressure on workers. In much broader terms, union busting has become more and more successful, and that, along with the always real threat of job outsourcing, has weakened the ability of workers to negotiate. Union membership has been steadily shrinking, while at the same time, wealth has become more concentrated in the hands of a powerful few. The two are related.

Escape from New York, did you see the movie? That's what it would be if you start limiting the pay of people whose taxes pay the freight in that city. That's why it's never gonna happen. This -- it's just a populist ruse. It's just designed to people go, "Yeah, yeah!"

This is fascinating. I haven't listened to Limbaugh much, but I think it is hilarious that he, of all people, would complain about someone trying to make the people go, "Yeah, yeah!"

I would have thought that Limbaugh used some kind of populist rhetoric to appeal to the dittoheads, but I guess he is going with the tried and true mythology that goes something like: you do not want to put any limits on the rich, because some day, maybe soon, you will be among their ranks!

Eh. Maybe I should join the dittoheads in dreaming of my future riches. At least it would spare me the sick feeling I get whenever I think of the fact that my assistantship, and my means of paying for school, may be gone in June after the state education budget is decided.