My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

« And by the way, "Taxes are NOT a scourge." | Main | Lies and the lying liars who hide behind Clinton »

November 04, 2005


It's so sad that in Portland your only choice is between socialism and corruption.

It is not either or it is a tag team likened to co-dependency between drug users in need of hope.

Suppose public employees had their liberty interest to choose a savings bank other than the "independent" (cough) PERS.

Both corruption and socialism, whatever, would be slightly reduced.

Investment bankers have covered themselves in a little bit of red dye No. 2, via the OIC, to make it social investing and thus as free as a bird from restraint, or everything that a true-blue-Laissez-Faire advocate could have possibly dreamed about.

The partnership will continue, with tweaks to the figureheads.

What's between "socialism" and "corruption", Jack? Capitalism unregulated? C'mon, Jack, give me a break. I know that you're too intellectually supple to fall for such simple-minded dichotomies.

What we have today IS unregulated capitalism, precisely because of the government participation as owner -- or worse as the joint partnerships. Jack has objected to joint partnerships, public-private joint partnerships.

I can only hope that Jack's objection is based on the weird legal tactic of the joint partnership playing a game of swapping hats, for legal deception, to assert the most effective objection for the joint operation.

Capitalism is a means of accountability all by its lonesome, for errors in business judgment. It is thwarted by crazy assertions of sovereign immunity for an entity that also claims the benefits of being free from effective governmental oversight as they are merely acting in a proprietary capacity. They are two-faced. That is the purgatory, the near complete escape from all mechanisms of accountability.

I go one step further and plant the blame squarely on the judiciary and the bar association's tolerance for renegades who's elevated status has been accorded only by reason of effectively representing the public interest.

Perhaps we should demand that all members of the bar have a weblog and make 4 posts a week. We could then glean from such posts inadvertent slips of hostility to the public interest. If such were the case, which end of the scale of public interest versus greed, among his peers in the bar or journalists, would Jack's posts land? There should be no question, at least from his posts.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Most Recent Photos

  • War_prez_prima_1
  • Bushvaca2nh
  • Dscn1145_2
  • Dscn1144_1
  • Dscn1144_4
  • Dscn1137_3
  • Dscn1137_4
  • Dscn1051
  • Dscn1046
  • Dscn0883_1
  • Dscn0881_1
  • 422d683505eb4821_1