Well Mona I think maybe you are right. Maybe it was Milton Friedman that was the disciple of Ayn Rand, not Leo Straus. I know they both taught at U. of Chicago. I read a lot of books and may of confused the two. However the rest of my post was right. Ayn Rand was a proponent of psychological egotism and wrote the book "The Virtues of Selfishness." So to say my whole post was wrong, is incorrect. As for the virtues of wikipedia, consider the source. Anyone can post anything on there. Sometimes the posters know what they are writing and are correct. Sometimes they have an agenda, like the posters from Fox news, and write bullshit. But thanks for the correction anyways, not withstanding the smug self-righteousness of it.

The problem with this case, and everything else that gets reported, is you don't know what to believe. Lou Dobb reports one thing. Another journalist reports something completely different. So how to determine who's telling the truth? My money is on the federal prosecutor's side. Prosecutors don't go after police unless they have really crossed the line. Prosecutors need good relations with police officers to make convictions. If they are perceived to be gunho for cops, cops won't trust them and they won't make convictions. Shooting an unarmed person that is running away from them and covering it up, is way over the line. On Sen. Fienstein I believe she thinks what these officers did was acceptable was because it was done to a "drug dealer". All she sees is the label, not the human being. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Fienstein a former prosecutor. Now if that is the case, it's really shocking that she would think it's ok to shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect.

I have a question. Glenn makes the good point that what the Bushies did originally was illegal, but then got a compliant congress to retroactively legalize their behavior. Now the constitution forbids laws that retroactively criminalize legal behavior. So if the constitution forbids criminalizing legal behavior after the fact, how can it be constitutional to do the exact opposite? To retroactively legalize what was criminal behavior when the act was committed. It seems to me it should work both ways. Is there any case law on the subject?

That aside, someone brought up the hope that this will generate substantial media attention. It should but probably won't. Even if it did get big play on the "msm" news channels, lots of americans get their news from other sources. So its likely to be missed by a lot of people.

For those that believe that WTC was taken down by explosives, I suggest you check out this link. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html Popular Mechanics did a great article that debunks most of the 9/11 conpiracy theories. There is simply no evidence that explosives were used to bring down the buildings. Anyone familiar with planned demolitions knows that it takes a lot of preparations in advance to bring down a building. Columns need to be removed, bore holes drilled, explosives planted etc. When could that been done when those buildings had people in them 24/7? Now if you want to argue 9/11 was allowed to happen, I think you'd have a better case. The gov't had plenty of warnings but failed to act on them. Why? That's anyone's guess. I say incompetence. Bush and co failed to take the threat seriuosly. They were operating from a cold war mindset, that focused on state actors. They didn't believe that non-state actors could attack our country in such a spectacular way.

The article you refer to in Popular Mechanics has long since been discredited. I suggest you apply yourself to disproving any one of Dr. Jones' 13 assertions if you are serious about what you say. You will find them on scholars for 911 truth or architects and engineers for 911 truth.

-- lightning_fast_draw

How about you provide a link there buddy? As for Dr. Jones 13 assertions, where's his evidence? Anyone can assert anything, the proof is in evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm in no way an advocate of the official 9/11 story btw. I just believe in Occam's razor. That the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. So please provide the link and I'll gladly check it out.

I hope he doesn't resign. I hope he serves out the rest of his term. It would be the political gift that keeps on giving to the dems. Craig would be a stone around every repug senator up for re-election. Plus considering how his own party turned on him, it would be political payback. Exactly what the hypocritical republican party deserves.

So all these warmongers work for various "think tanks". Like the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, etc. Where do they get their funding? I bet mainly from defense contractors. Since their funding comes from military contractors, their job is to advocate for war. Fred Hiatt, Michael Ledeen and the rest of them are nothing mroe then employees of the military-industrial complex. They just work in different branches of it. What's amazing is they think Americans are so stupid, we don't see how they just recycle the same arguments over and over. Country (fill in the blank) is at war against us. Country (fill in the blank) is in league with Al-qaeda.