the big bad corporations just sit back and print money. They have no concerns over profitability or their employees. Litigate 'em till it hurts and if it hurts their employees we'll just blame them for that too.

I realize why you have to quote so many other sources now. Because you have no real world experience.

Trite pseudo-populist rhetoric about the "high costs" of litigation might work when it comes to lawsuits against small businesses or individuals.

_________________________________________________________________

Trite pseudo-populist rhetoric of this kind works perfectly for comments trolls who fasten onto these comments pages in futile attempts to draw blood.

It's like being gummed by toothless ticks.

If you are really concerned about the cost ot litigation, 'fess up and take your medicine.

Plead out.

If Hiatt honestly believes this nonsense, why doesn't he endorse relieving the telecoms of the duty to follow any laws? Think of all the costly litigation and regulation-related overhead they'd be able to avoid if they could entirely operate outside the law!

Honestly, you'd think that even Fred Hiatt would be able to come up with something better than this.

Believing that the costs of litigation are relevant in the slightest to corporations like AT&T and Verizon -- as Hiatt obviously does, or at least pretends to -- is to displAy exactly the lack of Seriousness and Sophistication which The Washington Post Editorial Page believes itself to embody. That is additionally demonstrated by the fact that the lead counsel pursuing the case against these telecoms is a small non-profit organization with a tiny budget staffed by under-paid lawyers devoted to privacy rights and the rule of law.

This is the silliest notion. Corporate legal departments don't get paid until they have to defend against litigation? The only additional cost will be if they lose and have to pay damages and they even have insurance for that. Corporations have spent millions on legal to avoid paying $100,000 when they were clearly in the wrong. Again, all covered by liability insurance.

Hiatt writes in the op-ed that the telecoms shouldn't be "held hostage..." Held hostage is one of those catchy little couplings of two words that is frequently used for drawing an overblown picture of what is going on in a given situation.

The telecoms are not and will not be "held hostage" if they are, as they should be, forced to deal with the consequences of their actions. Being held hostage is more akin to what the two following definitions below describe. The situation the telecoms have created for themselves does not fall under these definitions.

Definition:

1. captive: somebody held prisoner by a person or group such as a criminal or a terrorist organization until specific demands are met or money is handed over

2. somebody manipulated: a person or group of people whose freedom of action is restricted or controlled by a more powerful organization by implied threats or other means

http://tinyurl.com/3xm727

Fred meant to say, "consigned to a new Holocaust."

He apologizes for misspeaking.

In 2008, I will not vote for any democrat who does not actively work against telecom amnesty, no matter where they come down on other issues.

Surely you realize by now that laws are for suckers and rules are for fools.

AT&T. Your World Delivered. Directly to the US Government.

Verizon. It's the Network. That would make the Stasi Proud.

Why would the telecoms be especially concerned for their employees in this case, if they are not "big and bad"?

Did thousands of them maybe do bad things?

Or just the highest of them?

Elucidate please.

David Sirota at OpenLeft:

The Need for Progressives to Embrace Captive-Industry Populism

by: David Sirota

Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 15:30:30 PM EDT

In an American political culture dominated by mindless free-trade and free-market fundamentalism, we have all heard the arguments against economic populism. Conservatives tell us that any effort to force corporations to behave properly is "anti-business" and will result in harm to our economy. Traditional, old-school liberals often avoid power-challenging policies and instead propose to spend more taxpayer money to bribe companies to do the right thing. Progressive populism, as I have written before, is different than both of these ideologies when it comes to these issues in that progressive populism believes that A) the government, and not just the market, is needed to deal with corporate misbehavior and B) when the government deals with corporate misbehavior, it should use its legal authority rather than only the taxpayers' treasury to protect society. In my new nationally syndicated column out today, I explain how this all works and show how a powerful new form of progressive populism is taking hold in states and localities across the country - a form of progressive populism that should be a roadmap to the wider progressive movement: Call it captive-industry populism.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2087

Just skimmed it but it looks pretty good.

Glen, I am shocked that you would mischaracterize Verizon's finances in the way you have here. Everyone knows that "Revenue" is a top-line figure, which does not count taxes, all forms of expenses including salaries, maintanence, and of course lobbyist fees.

I have no idea what Verizons bottom line is, but I imagine is is a much, much smaller figure. 10% of revenue, for example, would be an excellent net profit.

Let's say it's 10%. Why, that's a mere 7 billion and change profit. They're barely scraping by.

Tiberius pretending corporations care about employess is hilarious

"They have no concerns over profitability or their employees."

A corporation's duty is soley to the shareholders and the bottom line. They should care about employees rather than treat them like office furniture. Are you becoming a progressive? Worrying about the working man?

I think that the "cost of litigation" he is worried about are the large fines (or worse) that could be assessed after they are found guilty. One thing to keep in mind is that the Telecoms probably received a lot of sweet cash as part of their devil's bargain to cooperate in the first place. That and more would probably be on the line if a judicial ruling goes against them.