Is the rule-of-law basically dead and are we the subjects of a two-tiered system of justice or not?

My answer yes and no. Yes it's dead in some respects and two-tiered in others. And yes any inequity under the law diminishes it's fundamental credibility as an institution capable of yielding just outcomes for those subject to it. What's your point? Stop turning to the law for solutions and just resort to a system of personal justice?

We should have to spend money to get back our inalienable rights? To stop our government from creating a full-blown surveillance/police state? We should have to spend money to get them to stop torturing or to reveal torture and prosecute those who wage illegal wars??

Are the above listed things not important enough to you to spend your presumably hard earned dollars to reassert or prevent? If the law is the problem what's the solution? If money is the problem what's the solution? If government is the problem what's the solution? No laws, no courts, no lawyers, no police, no militaries, no money, no property rights, no religion? I think John Lennon beat you to that little pearl of wisdom.

I forgot adnoto and heru-ur have all the answers to all the vexing little problems of human existence--it's all so very elemental you see: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you sprinkled with a dab of zero government, a dash of deconstructing the Federal Reserve banking system, and a big dose of barter economy Social Darwinism i.e. Go Small Go Galt and we'll all live happily ever after.

Pure unadulterated genius. Seriously. You guys are like Jefferson, Jesus, Ghandi, Nietzche, MLK Jr., Ayn Rand, and Marx all distilled into two anonymous internet beacons of enlightenment.

I'm truly in awe of you both. I just wish you'd come out from hiding and lead the way.

The "third-way" passage to "real change" is what exactly? Pitchforks, sit-ins, tax protests, anti-incumbent/third party politics . . . you guys have all the answers please please please explain your bulletproof plans in detail, cite examples of past success, and then lead the way. Plan it, organize it, build it, and your followers will become an unstoppable juggernaut for peaceful change, social justice, human harmony, and economic bliss.

I don't plan on holding my breath but if you get your little fantasy dirigible off the ground you let us all know.

Maybe you could just point to your favorite perfect society in human history that struck all the right balances so we can use it as our template and breathe new life into the rotting bloated carcass of American.

involved (because I enjoy reading comments from both of them), but I wanted to acknowledge the nice turn of phrase by rrheard

Pure unadulterated genius. Seriously. You guys are like Jefferson, Jesus, Ghandi, Nietzche, MLK Jr., Ayn Rand, and Marx all distilled into two anonymous internet beacons of enlightenment.

I truly enjoy well-written commentary that's by degrees, salty, pungent, informative and illustrative. That's really the sort of thing that makes the language sing. And why I enjoy the commentariat at UT (the best, as we well know, around).

You bring up race and claim that you are better off. Because people of color can drink at the white water fountain now and have a black president?

Of course, you idiot. Just what exactly do you think the civil rights movement [and your favorite name drop, MLK] was working toward?

Why is the National Security Team the ones looking into the treatment of the Afghan prisoners? Perhaps I'm ignorant of how the government is supposed to work (for which I should be forgiven, given that it hasn't worked properly in quite a long time) but if Obama was serious about pursuing the matter, wouldn't he give it over the the Justice Department? Wouldn't that be their job?

It is my experience when discussing this topic that most people do not know exactly what the doctrine of papal infalability means. There has been so much unti-catholic rethoric (some of it well deserved, OK maybe most of it) and propaganda that most people have been exposed to total nonsense in terms of what it means. Now again you can argue that infallability in itself is total nonsense. But have you made an effort to grasp what the doctrine is?

If you know, forgive the inclusion of an outline of the doctrine here and simply ignore it. If have no had time or opportunity to look into it you may find this interesting (I did not say believable)

The Ex Cathedra doctrine of the Catholic Church was "officially" adopted in the 19th century so it is lesss than 200 years old. A Pope is considered to be infallable only when he speaks Ex Cathedra (from the chair). In other occasions, because of the help of the holy spirit, his pronouncements become dogma. There is a posibility that he is wrong but very unlikely. Since the Catholic Church does not view the Holy Scripture as "literal" writing, there is no place to go to definitively set things to be the Word of God, other than the Ex Cathedra mechanism.

Here is the interesting part of my point. How many times has a Pope spoken Ex Cathedra? ONLY ONCE after the formal adoption of the doctrine.

In the 1950's, Pope Pius the XII speaking Ex Cathedra settle the issue of the Assumption of the Virgen Mary, at the urging of the Spanish Bishops. (almost Kennedy times!)

An earlier occurence was done by Pope Pius the IX before the formal adoption of the doctrine. In this case, it was the issue of the Immaculate Conception (hence the reference as a Virgen). He had the support of all Bishops.

The infallability of "infallible ecumenical Concils pronouncements" is another matter.

Please, do not assume that I believe in that doctrine. My point is that most people assume it has been around for ever (early Christian days) and more erroneous that whatever the Pope says cannot be wrong and should not be contradicted.

In this area the Popes have shown more discretion than President Bush. They do not claim that they talk to our real Father.

It is my experience when discussing this topic that most people do not know exactly what the doctrine of papal infallibility means. There has been so much unti-catholic rhetoric (some of it well deserved, OK maybe most of it) and propaganda that most people have been exposed to total nonsense in terms of what it means. Now again you can argue that infallibility in itself is total nonsense. But have you made an effort to grasp what the doctrine is?

If you know, forgive the inclusion of an outline of the doctrine here and simply ignore it. If have no had time or opportunity to look into it you may find this interesting (I did not say believable)

The Ex Cathedra doctrine of the Catholic Church was "officially" adopted in the 19th century so it is lesss than 200 years old. A Pope is considered to be infallible only when he speaks Ex Cathedra (from the chair). In other occasions, because of the help of the holy spirit, his pronouncements can become dogma. There is a possibility that he is wrong but very unlikely. Since the Catholic Church does not view the Holy Scripture as "literal" writing, there is no place to go to definitively set things to be the Word of God, other than the Ex Cathedra mechanism.

Here is the interesting part of my point. How many times has a Pope spoken Ex Cathedra? ONLY ONCE after the formal adoption of the doctrine.

In the 1950's, Pope Pius the XII speaking Ex Cathedra settle the issue of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, at the urging of the Spanish Bishops. (almost Kennedy times!)

An earlier occurrence was done by Pope Pius the IX before the formal adoption of the doctrine. In this case, it was the issue of the Immaculate Conception (hence the reference as a Virgin). He had the support of all Bishops.

The infallibility of "infallible ecumenical Councils pronouncements" is another matter.

Please, do not assume that I believe in that doctrine. My point is that most people assume it has been around for ever (early Christian days) and more erroneously that whatever the Pope says cannot be wrong and should not be contradicted.

In this area the Popes have shown more discretion than President Bush. They do not claim that they talk to our real Father.