He can't be executed because there is no evidence he murdered anyone. Death penalty for assault (including rape) was abolished by SCOTUS many years ago now. As should all death penalty. Hasn't the government sanctioned enough violence?

But again, no sympathy for Graner. And again, shoddy journalism. He made his bed. His lockup conditions may be inhumane and may not be warranted, but he didn't get 29 months in lockup for forgetting soap. The man is a violent, unrepentant sociopath.

List price is $89.99, on sale for $53.94 on Amazon, until recently it was offered there for only $25 for several days! I snapped it up at the low price.

This is a toy that you will find just as cool as your cats do. Put it in guard or autonomous mode and watch it chase your cats or your cats chase it. The interactions make for lots of youtube moments.

I recently bought a Chevrolet Aveo5 manual transmission. It gets 38 mpg on the highway, is affordable, nice looking, seats five, and moves a lot of stuff stowed through the hatchback with the seats down. It gets a lot of positive comments and I'm seeing more of these on the road.

BUT, this isn't a Detroit car—it's a rebadged captive import GM Daewoo Kalos made in Bupyong. And I bought mine pre-owned, so that didn't help GM out any.

If GM does go into bankruptcy I wonder what compensation those of us with warranties will get. I'm guessing "none" is a pretty safe answer.

Too bad the "Big Three" have forgotten how to make subcompacts in the States. There's still a lot of Geo Metros on the in with 200K+ miles on them. Those had the GM M platform and were manufactured in North America. If they could make them in the '80s and '90s why can't they dust off the old blueprints, update them to modern times and build the dang things? GM has been making cars alongside Toyota in Fremont since 1962 in their NUMMI plant.

Making nice little cars is not exactly a black art. These automakers have the wherewithal, the knowledge, the technology, the designs, the tools, everything they need. What is wrong with them?

Actually the government does not have to play by your capitalist rules.

Government has the power of eminent domain. It doesn't have to make a negotiated buyout offer or attempt a hostile takeover. It could simply condemn the shares of GM, compensate the present shareholders at spot price based on present market cap, and install a management team of its own choosing.

This would doubtless be cheaper in the short run than making a dubious loan of many times the company's market cap, and would certainly be a much more effective way of making changes to how the company is run. In the long term it would obviously put the taxpayer in a better position to recoup its investment as owner rather than as creditor. If you think it's so hard to make money running the company that's running itself into the ground, try making money lending to it. GM is not going to be looking out for its general creditor's interests.

This isn't a hypothetical, untested legal theory, it's one of the most fundamental powers of government. The federal government took over in whole or in part, many large industries as well as medium-size enterprises during WWII to produce munitions and other military supplies. Local, state, and government agencies have condemned both the assets and the shares of utilities and companies of public interest and taken an active role in their management.

Of course this has happened on a much greater scale in other countries. And it could be the most painless way to integrate private healthcare institutions (especially insurance) into a national single-payer healthcare plan.

Won't happen with Detroit though. The new Bush Economic Doctrine is buy up the bad assets and bail out the irresponsible tycoons, and leave the taxpayer holding the bag.

The federal government isn't competent to run the US auto industry.

Well that's a bald and blanket unsupported statement.

Nobody is talking about Henry Paulson giving orders to the production lines in Detroit. If the federal government isn't "competent" to run an auto company it's because they're not in that enterprise. If they bought one they'd have no trouble finding competent management, which would probably including continuing all existing middle management and much of the upper management, although probably on different terms.

Ownership is not the same thing as management. The current shareholders of GM aren't qualified to run an auto company either, and there's no requirement that they be qualified. If anything, government ownership as opposed to investment ownership would free the companies to pursue healthier long-term goals.

I'm not saying the existing management is altogether competent. I'm saying that if the government took over it probably wouldn't do a top-to-bottom replacement of its entire management team with government bureaucrats. Middle-management would probably mostly stay in place.

Wagoner would take a hike because his equity would be cashed out and he'd probably have no interest in staying on. His plan had been to draw a $1 salary. That would not be appealing to him if his stake disappeared. Besides he is the first who should go. He would be replaced by someone recruited by the government probably from industry who would take new marching orders but would have plenty of experience to decide who stays and who goes.

My main point was not that the government was so much better or worse at running private enterprises. My point is that its goal would be more compatible with economic stability and the taxpayer's interest than handing out cash bailouts.

Your point seems to be the antigovernment argument that the government is incapable of running any large program well. That's BS. Look at the USPS for instance, and tell me who does a better job.