The facts that you're able to comment at all and, further, that you can criticize the "Broadsheet" blog without being banned, sets "Broadsheet" apart from most conservative blogs.

So. There.

Please show me how you came to the conclusion that Ransom suggests that Ransom "get[s] to decide the basis of discussion at Salon." Please show how Pyrian says that you "don't get to comment."

I don't think they have the power you say they have, nor have they asserted such a power in their writings.

And no, it's not the only difference between progressives and conservatives. I used the conservative-blog example to refute your argument equating progressive-ideals liberals and conservatives.

At least I hope you believe that I have no power to stifle you, nor would I want such power.

Typical of the US government to attack the people working illegally while it ignores the companies that, and the people in charge of such companies who, abuse and enslave these people.

This tragedy hits upon so many issues crucial to the 2006 elections.

But more important, this story shows that we desperately need to ensure that the US government stops giving money to companies that abuse and enslave these people.

I have thought about it and I agree, jeffrey, it's not strictly slavery. But what do you make of this line in the article? "The [Bush] administration also waived the requirement for contractors rebuilding the Gulf Coast to provide valid I-9 employment eligibility forms completed by their workers." Do you think this is a tacit approval of KBR's hiring of undocumented or illegally-working people? I do.

I doubt that any of these legal aliens would have come here, bused by the subcontractors, if they were promised no pay for weeks of work and under conditions we wouldn't accept for field horses.

I also generally agree with you, jeffrey, that "the left loves one of these groups" at least in the sense of "loves" meaning "cares for the humanity of." But, of course, regarding whether they should be doing work here, labor unions are quoted in the article as stating their opposition to the contracts no one's apparently allowed to see (that's gotta be illegal; no, wait, it's a "national security" issue, never mind, it's OK!). For all we know, these contracts say explicitly, "Go ahead and abuse anyone working for you! Bring in Mexicans, Canadians, Russians, whoever!"

Interesting how Senators Mary Landrieu and Carl Levin, who oppose the subcontractors' use of undocumented workers, have "D"s next to their names. I think it means they're Democrats, probably on "the left."

I don't like to tag an entire group of people as "the right," but based on the Bush Administration's and the Republican Senate and House leaders' intentional ignorance on this issue, jeffrey, would it be fair to say that the right "loves one of these groups" as well, the "corporate thieves"? After all, who can point to any DHS prosecution of any of these companies? But no, I'll be fair and say it's only the Republican Party, not the right, that loves corporate thieves.

And what's this? It also appears, based on this article, that the Bush Administration "loves" (though not in the human-rights sense) illegal aliens if all it can do, and this is after a Democratic Senator complains, a lot, is arrest 10 people for questionable documentation! 10!

It's amazing how many Venezuelan baseball stars have the last name of Coca-Cola.

How many dollars in corporate subsidies does a company like AT&T get? "What they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it." Your pipes, Whitacre? How long have you been CEO of AT&T?

You have a corporation like Comcast that can use its influence to keep cable monopolies in regions of Philadelphia, block RCN from laying fiber optics in Philadelphia, and receive $20-30 million in tax abatements (I think) to build a skyscraper in Philadelphia.

Admittedly, this is partly a political problem where voters should be able to vote the councilmembers allowing this insanity out of office. But if a company like Comcast, which gets so much from governments, were to claim (perhaps it does already), as AT&T does, that somehow its network is its alone, in the sense that it alone paid for it, using no one else's money, it would be incorrect.

And P.S.: Let's work toward ways to ensure a smooth transition away from corporate personhood and towards human-focused and humane corporate policies.