I see a link here with Glenn's Goldman Sachs posts.

The fact that so many people, especially but not exclusively Republicans, don't seem to have any objections to this type of behavior (doling out government largesse to favored groups and denying it to others) is evidence of our mendacious political culture, where the powerful laud the free market, but then constantly game the system to create outcomes that are the opposite of what the free market would have dictated. In short, it's all about outcomes, not process or rules.

Whenever the government tries to impose even the most common-sense controls over entities in the private sector that receive its monies, suddenly capitalism itself is being affronted (unless it presents an opportunity to weaken a union). Witness Rush Limbaugh's complaints about the new restrictions on bank executive compensation.

"Capitalism," as defined by our political system, is nothing more than the government ensuring that the right sort of people keep their perks and privileges, regardless of their criminal levels of incompetence and thievery. Thus GM must get tough with its unions because of its terrible business model, but investment bank execs are rewarded because of their terrible business model. Joe Nacchio of Qwest is actually prosecuted; after all, his company at at least initially stood up to warrantless wiretapping.

And yet our government gets righteously indignant when Russia punishes or rewards CEOs in similar fashion. American Exceptionalism, Part ad infinitum.

On a related note, readers here may be interested to know that the Russian human rights group Memorial just won the Sakharov Prize. Link at sig.

Most TV dramas are insufferable focus-group-concocted nonsense that panders to Americans' fantasies of being either upper middle class (doctor/lawyer shows) or getting to feel morally superior and kick the shit out of bad guys (cop shows).

The show's fundamental problem from a ratings perspective is that it presents small towns largely as they are instead of the Hallmark card, Currier & Ives Christmas scene we prefer to project onto them. The characters are neither George Bailey nor Mr. Potter, which, as measured by the popularity of that particular holiday fable, is apparently the extent of complexity permitted in depictions of life outside major metro areas.

Instead, FNL presents a hearty dollop of social realism where it should never exist - network TV. Granted, the show has barely survived, but that's to be expected. Any amount of realism, not to mention subtlety and understatement, is transgressive for TV (and yes, I'm including the manifestly unreal "reality" shows in that assessment).

That's quite an argument you're making - that scrupulous use of citations in journalism is a "fetish". Another term for it is "professional ethics". I suppose the Hippocratic Oath is the oldest example of such a fetish; does it really matter, after all, whether the patient is harmed?

No one argues that it's never acceptable to grant anonymity, but there needs to be a clear rationale (the speaker is contradicting his superiors or going against the grain of an establishment of which he/she is a part, etc.). Unless this exception can be clearly discerned by the reader, the anonymity is suspect.

Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Straight America to Gay America:

"The sanctity of my third heterosexual marriage (following two divorces) is threatened by your having even one."

We really should ponder what this says about us as a people. Hint: it's not flattering.

And despite this "troubling" development of government agents being held accountable, we clearly have no problem preaching to other countries about the importance of legal extradition.

Witness the U.S. response to the dispute going on between Russia and the U.K. regarding the potential extradition of Andrei Lugovoi, whom the British allege was involved in the killing of turncoat KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko (link at sig).

Is a well-known part of the Greek Orthodox liturgy; this by itself corroborates the Marine's allegations.

;-)

White ethnic Democrats, including many Buchanan-like Catholics, could be drawn to Dobbs; his dual message of support for organized labor and anti-illegal immigration could prove to be a game-changer.

Bill Clinton won partly because he was able to woo back a lot of those Democrats in 1992. Gore lost partly for his inability to retain them, so they are important to the party's chances, like it or not.

At this point I think support for Obama is a mile wide and an inch deep. He seems profoundly feckless thus far, too timid by half. Or is he just too cool for school? And if he doesn't produce results by 2012 he'll be (deservedly) a one-term president.

Although Dobbs' rhetoric has certainly ventured into racist and xenophobic territory, I would remind my fellow liberals that being against illegal immigration does not necessarily make one a racist. To believe it does, and to automatically accuse others of it whenever opposition is voiced, is little more than politically correct McCarthyism.

Masses of non-English-speaking, undereducated, unskilled, low-wage people do indeed place a great strain on our already inadequate social safety net. Of course, that doesn't bother the limousine liberals who control the Democratic Party, nor does it matter to Republicans, who are always happy to see cheap labor, regardless of what damage it does to the country. The collusion of both parties in their indifference to U.S. territorial integrity, not to mention the American worker, cannot be overstated.