I remember reading a tiny news article in my local paper a couple years ago. A man in New York was being sent to prison. His crime? He hooked up a satelite dish to receive a middle eastern news channel, that is illegal to receive in the United States. The Bush admin. has banned the reception of this news channel, because of its "pro-terrorists" agenda. It wasn't Al-jazeera, but I can't recall the name of it. It made me wonder a couple of things. One, why is it illegal to receive a news channel? Two, why isn't this in a bigger story and more prominently placed in the paper. Aren't Americans supposed to have freedom of speech? Freedom to read or hear what ever we want? Putting a man in prison for hooking up a satelite dish? Seems our "free press" should be championing for the right of Americans, to choose to hear what ever "press" they desire. Well that's what would happen, if we actually had a "free press" in this country.

I think Tracy Clork-Flory needed to do some better research. She wrote "Upskirting cases are hardly the only recent challenges to our notions of privacy. Recently, three girls featured without permission on the Web site and companion book "Hot Chicks With Douchebags" -- which consists of pictures featuring … yeah, you guessed it -- filed a lawsuit, claiming violation of privacy." Only problem is that website, hot chicks with douchebags, is not pictures of women using douches. It's pictures of hot chicks with "douchebags", as in guys that a jerks. All it took was a simple google search of hot chicks with douchebags, to find that out. The women that are suing were shown with pictures of them and their boyfriends. Next time do better research Tracy. We salon readers deserve better then this.

I hope no one attacks Brothere for his comment, but he's right. Hello. You wear a mini skirt so short that doesn't even cover you butt, don't be surprised if someone tries to see your panties. As for "downblousing" give me a break. You wear a shirt with half your boobs being exposed, guys are going to look at you. That's the reason you wore it the first place, to get guys attention. No one forced you to put the goods out there, you choose that yourself. Let's use some common sense, instead of irrationality.

Of course our corporate controlled media is celebrating Obama's picks for his econ team. The economic status quo will be preserved. There will be no challenges to globalization and Friedmanism/laissez-faireism. Of which the corporate MSM has been the biggest defenders of. There will be no calls for economic reforms or return to regulations. Obama has shown he isn't going to rock the economic boat. If he had, the MSM would be howling in protest.

As anyone that has read "The Shock Doctrine" the time to institute new policies, is in times of crisis. This economic crisis is the perfect oppurtuntiy to realign our whole economic system. Repudiate the failed globalization and economic Friedmanism that's been imposed on us the past 30 years. The time to institute economic reforms that benefit all people, not just the multi-millionaires. Unfortunatly, Obama has shown he has no interest in taking advantage of this golden oppurtunity. His econ team is proof of that. It's a shame, these oppurtunities only come across every so often. Who knows the next time we'll have a chance to completely realign the entire economic system?

I am sure that Keillor meant no disrespect with the Mambo bit, but is merely expressing disappointment at most of Obama's cabinet picks. Stop being so sensitive. Obama campaigned on the theme of "Change". Then when elected, he picks a bunch of Clinton retreads. That isn't the change people voted for. We didn't want a third term for Bush, or for Clinton either.

For the uninformed and ignorant, mambo is a dance. So Mr. Mambo means that Obama is a dancer. Here's a helpful suggestion. If you don't know the meaning of a word, LOOK IT UP.

The republicans in the senate must be smiling at Reid's recent comments. They know they can push him around. Reid will buckle at the first sign of republican opposition to anything. Is it possible for the senate dems to remove him from his position? Anyone know the answer? We need a leader, not a wimp like Reid in charge.

Glenn wrote "That's all part-and-parcel of the broader trend whereby we now believe that the U.S. President is empowered to do anything and order anything -- from declaring someone an "enemy combatant" to proclaiming torture techniques to be legal -- and that the mere fact that he does so makes it legal."

I haven't went through all the comments yet, so I don't know if anyone has posted this, but I'd like to add a minor correction. Glenn forgot to put Republican in front of president. If Obama orders a crime to be committed while President, the republicans and our "liberal" media will have new found respect for the rule of law. A US president is only allowed to break the law, is if he's a republican.