That's why I said it's not as riveting. I know what you're saying, but it's very frustrating that such surface things usually override the actual content.

Maybe a trained speaker should be hired and a script written, complete with some laugh lines? After all, we live in a world in which it's the marketing, not the message that counts.

Thanks for providing that other link...it whould be very good, with those two!

I was just reading the decision in the Uighur habeas appeal. The majority opinion of the appeals court begins by discussing that the maxim ubi jus, ibi remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy) does not apply to the habeas corpus right.

What??? I don't even know what to say about that...[I may need some smelling salts.] What do they base that on...and would you mind posting a link to that decision? Thanks.

But if a nation which has no right to hold a prisoner has no obligation to set the prisoner free, perhaps we can find other places where ubi jus, ibi remedium does not apply.

I really like that idea, and your examples...it seems only fair...you know the "American way".

If a prisoner doesn't have a right to freedom just because the government has no right to hold him, why should The Corpornment exist because of a few rights?

Exactly!

Made me smile.

Great word:

Murdochia

I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure about the "communist dictatorship" comparison [it may be correct...I just don't know]:

The press/news organizations are hardly free as they exist only at the pleasure of the government, which is so deeply in the pocket of big business, that the US, far from being the land of the free, is actually more along the lines of a communist dictatorship with two parties being two sides of the same coin.

Mussolini described the merger of corporations and state "fascism":

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

I guess I got that wrong...Mussolini said what we call fascism should be called "corporatism".

Sorry.

Thanks for the link to the Uigher/Habeus case. I'm not all the way through, yet, but just have to ask: are you Circuit Judge Rogers? Reading the following is just like being at UT, reading your comments:

3 The majority understates the extent to which there is no other viable country to which these petitioners can go. Maj. Op. at 4. It is not only petitioners who fear they would be tortured if returned to their homeland of China; former Navy Secretary Gordon England and former Secretary of State Colin Powell confirmed as much, and the Executive has never disputed that proposition, even in this litigation. And, while the majority states it is the “policy” of the United States not to render people into countries in which they will be subject to torture or other mistreatment, id., that is also the legal obligation of the United States as a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, signed Apr. 18, 1988, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. Nothing in the Executive’s filings under seal on January 16 and 28, 2009 has changed the situation.

The Fourth Circuit [uggh] responds to Rogers with complete "Foxian" condescension [which is how this comment is not OT! ;-)] way. I seem to recall that Bush-and-the-Cheney-Gang specifically worked toward pushing this court to the right and having most of the WOT cases go there.

I know, and I agree, except I just thought "fascism" would be a better comparison.

I just want to repeat your sentiments, [with emphasis added]:

I feel confident she is giving congress good advice as the head of its TARP Oversight Panel and the Obama team would be wise to pay attention to her as well.

Thanks, as always, for the added links!

Boehlert [from Glenn’s link]:

Indeed, that $70-an-hour meme, actively promoted by the anti-union conservative media, has ricocheted around the traditional press as well as the political landscape, where it was picked up by congressional critics last week during hearings and used to argue against aiding GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

“Ricocheted” is the correct word. The whole thing reminds me of the recent garbage about “30 million dollars for mice”:

The history of the “30 million dollars for mice” meme: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/feb/13/mike-pence/no-money-stimulus-san-francisco-mice/

Same old tactics-lies and obfuscation bouncing off of every hard surface.

As far as the conservatives are concerned, trade unions are basically terror organizations that should be eliminated.

In the early 80's there was indeed a big push to view the Soviet Union [socialism] as the world's biggest supporter of terrorism.

Workers such as the auto industry workers should work for slave wages without health benefits and still consider themselves lucky.

Much of the early wealth of the aristocracy was borne on the backs of slave laborers, and the old aristocracy has never stopped feeling entitled to "something for nothing".

To those enlightened conservative souls, speculators who move virtual money around deserve to make money, tons of it, along with the attorneys who keep them out of jail, because they are real capitalists and not the tools of international socialism. Unions are anti-American and must be eliminated at all cost.

Isn't this exactly what Enron did? When will we ever learn?

OY! So depressing...