Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

• Robt April 20, 2010 10:07 am

  

  I have always heard from the right about how all Americans need to bow to the risk takers. The wealthy risk takers to be exact.
  How is it that miners work is not risky but Wall Street banks are?
  For a latge portion of the political spectrum to champion risk taking as a virtue and political ideology that is to be afored and cherished is negligent of the real life risks of actual risk takers.
  The monetary risk that the right idolize has no value of life or life expectancy.
  The risk wealthy investers take is that of losing some of their money and getting bailed out by GW Bush and republicans with tax payers money when they fail. So what, that the failing investor doesn’t jump out of a 50 story Wall Street building to his demise? It is money and it is replacable since they are such wizards and great minds that can take a penny and invest it into one of the worlds greatest multi national corporation with his so called ambition.
  Whereas a miner’s job every time he enters that mine to extract the coal for this great risk takerof an investment risk taker/CEO that risks it all every time he goes to the office verses every time the miner returns deep into the ground is supposed to be uncomparable. That the risk investor is the real risk taker because the value of money is more valuable than life itself.
  This is where the right. For the emphasis on investing monetary units for profit recieves the rights praised value and neglects the human life.
  This is where the SCOTUS in its Citizens United decision disconnects from reality to strict ideology.
  The miners can have the mine collapse or blow up and kill them where the mining company has no HUMAN life to lose.
  It is not an ideology I prescribe to but a humane priority that life trumps money. Remember it was GW Bush that said, “Sometimes money trumps peace”.
  Think about Bush’s statement and try to apply it to life.
  Who decides and why when money trumps peace. In other words, murder sometimes can be justifiable for money (profit).

• Canute April 16, 2010 8:56 am

  

  Ha! Chomsky reminds me of the Northwestern electrical engineering professor who also happens to be a holocaust denier, in that he is really good at one thing (in his case: linguistics) and not so good at anything else.
  As to your point, Mark, it was well made. The German/Nazi distinction wasn’t hard for Americans then, so what’s up with our inability to separate a religious belief from insane political goals? Are we just that scared of the unknown? Probably.

• Mark Levine April 15, 2010 9:09 am

  

  Ick. No. I’d filibuster Noam Chomsky.

• Robt April 14, 2010 12:57 am

  

  I heard of Elizabeth Warren as a name tht could go on the SOCTUS nominee list. Saw her interviewed on Maddow and she implies she is where she needs to be. I haven’t heard much of the names on the so called quick short list.
  But I ask you, what about Noam Chomsky?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
  Too much? Gotta admit it is better than Glenn Beck’s suggestion?