Atlanta Opinion

By jbmlaw

September 13, 2006 08:05 AM | Link to this

Good morning, all. I have enjoyed the opportunity to litigate against Big Oil, Big Auto, Stock Brokerage and Insurance Companies, and Big Banking. I have contested accounting frauds and personal torts against these huge companies. (In the interest of full disclosure, I disclose that I am now in a full-time defensive corporate position.) One of the two oil companies left me some doubts about the corporate integrity. None of the others – even from a hostile view – struck me as particularly evil. If you want to hear about evil, get me started on litigation against the government. America’s bureaucracy is the source of all of the evil in corporate America.

Undue influence? I doubt it, otherwise we would be drilling in ANWR and would have been building nuclear plants for the past 30 years, and would not have micromanaging regulations in banking or on automobile construction or on almost every other industry. I hope they have some influence – I would like to think that nonprofit moonbats are not the only voices in the room with our Congressmen. Let everyone speak.

By Brian Curtis

September 13, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this

Nice of some executives to recognize that trying to plug “leaks” is a pointless endeavor. I only wish our government would realize the same.

You know, “leaks” aren’t much of a problem if you just conduct your business ethically in the first place.

By Sting Ray

September 13, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this

The HP flap is a great example of how big business employs ethics that are equivalent to “the rest of us”.

In an conspiracy eerily similar to blog-trolling, the CEO of HP employed third parties to impersonate the online IDs of HP board members.

When caught, the CEO of HP lied about her involvement, (just like a troll here would), “I dont know nothin’ ‘bout no impersonating IDs…honest.”

These overpaid suits are no more ethical than you or I. But they have one thing that we dont have: phoney resumes, and coerced testimonials, (and a willingness to say the word “Synergy”).

Stupid troll tricks at that level?

Ethically, HP has been downgraded from “international computer company” to “automated abacus consortium and slide-rule syndicate”.

By Jim Wooten

September 13, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this

Morning jbmlaw, Brian, and those to come. While I’ve seen some business types around the General Assembly who struck me as sleazy, they usually didn’t last long and weren’t particularly effective. Besides, on many issues other interest groups — educators, local governments, environmentalists and the like — have more staying power and are therefore more effective.

By Blog Simple

September 13, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this

Laws “…I contested big oil accounting frauds…” should read, “I was overcharged for my beef jerky at the BP, man, and it was desicated and too chewy to boot, so I took it back even though I had to drive like ten miles, man, and I made them give me another free one, man. I really stuck it to the man that time, yep….yep….yippy!”

Whatever law does all day, he’s got his face stuck to the LCD flatpanel, but that’s a good thing: now his flat face matches his flat head.

Law, you need to take a long, long….loooong break….off a short pier.

Go fishing. Make love to your wife. Watch the first two seasons of “House”, now on DVD.

But get lost.

By Harold

September 13, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this

Everybody either turns sleazy or into Mother Teresa.

HP didnt do anything one party to a divorce doesn’t do, so about 40% of the population eh?

Oil’s influence in politics is huge but not undue. Oil products control the economy and most all of us. Try watching TV or listenign to the radio without being told 20x per hour (or more) how an oil related product is essential prestigious and you can’t live without it.

The USA flag should be changed from stars and bars to oil and toil because that’s what this country is about.

By CJ

September 13, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this

I disagree with jbmlaw. The fact that we’re not drilling in the Arctic Reserve and don’t have more nuclear power plants is scant evidence that business doesn’t have undue influence. To the contrary, the fact that drilling in ANWR is even on the agenda (over and over again despite the public’s aversion) is evidence of the opposite. Corporations were effectively given the rights under our constitution when the Supreme Court interpreted a corporation to be a “person” under the 14th amendment. Talk about judicial activism.

jbmlaw - Everyone can speak. But when I buy a pair of shoes, that doesn’t mean the owner of the shoe store speaks for me. When I take a job, that doesn’t mean that my employer speaks for me. I also agree that when a union member pays dues, it doesn’t mean that union leaders speak for him.

Are corporations less ethical than we are? I would say, in magnitude, the answer is yes for many of them. However, we copy CDs and software we didn’t pay for. We hire illegal aliens to work in our yards. We have to work on ourselves before we can become self-righteous about others.

By Van

September 13, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this

From my point of view, if there is big money involved, I have my doubts.

Do the mom and pop stores engage in unethical behavior, I doubt it, do medium size businesses play a little loose with ethics, they might.

But, on the other hand, ever since the government got involved with the big oil monopoly breakups of the early 20th century, it seems that the more government regulation are involved, the more unethical behavior is seen.

Hmmm, could there be a connection?

By Janine

September 13, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

Mr. W. re: your second question. Undoubtedly, lobbyists hired by Big Business, whether hired by drug companies or by any other special interest group, do have Big influence on politics. They must be effective or there would not be so many companies/groups who have them on the payroll. Now, is this okay? I don’t think so. Is it corrupt? Maybe, but legally so. Who do I get mad at about it…..the influencee or the influencer??? And is the GOP especially influenced? Absolutely not. It is probably an equal opportunity proposition.

By getalife

September 13, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

Do you believe any or all of those allegations to be true — and if so, what should be done about it?

Duh, yes they are true. Enron set the stage. They write the laws so they should hand out life sentences for business and death sentences for government corruption.

I doubt Duke would be writing corruption prices on cocktail napkins or Jefferson frozen assets, if there was a death sentence involved.

Jack Abrahmoff scandal would be perfect candidates for harsh penalties to set an example.

By Hadden Knough

September 13, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

What exactly is a “troll” on blog. I looked it but someone above mentioned it in different context of IDs it seems, or am I not understanding the meaning?

By jbmlaw

September 13, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

Van, I think you have correctly measured a truth of life: legislated ethics, rather than creating a minimal benchmark, in fact become the ethical ceiling in a competitive industry. We are better off with the natural ethics or the marketplace rather than standards that sanction a level of evil.

Sting Ray suggest another possibility to me: I have almost no litigation experience with companies in computer or related “new” industries. I wonder if there is a lesser level of ethics there than in traditional companies. (Because the people there think they are more clever than the rest of us?)

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

September 13, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

Oh, Jim…you’re so close!

I’m still looking for your column about how BP’s recent pipeline woes are an affirmation of how companies will act with integrity when left to their own devices and the will of the market.

Note to all those schoolyard name callers out there: this is for Jim. I’m not calling for more government regulation, a welfare state, socialism, immediate withdrawl from Iraq, shelter for terrorists, a recount of the Bush/Gore election or the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

I’m interested in hearing a professional columnist’s take on a very specific example of corporate short-term interests vs. the larger common good.

By jbmlaw

September 13, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

HK, I think “troll”, in the context of a blog, is one of those terms that means exactly whatever you wish it to mean, kinda like my “moonbat” or Getalife’s “wingnut.” Not much true meaning, but guaranteed to inflame the recipient of the epithet.

By Captain Freedom

September 13, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

Van,

My friend in True Belief, you have struck the nail squarely on the head. It is the rise of government regulation that has spurred the moral turpitude of our nation’s business elite. This is the basis of Libertarian thought — no cops = no crime.

Why, if there were no regulations, Ken Lay never would have had to kill himself to avoid the jailer. He would have been as honest as an Acolyte.

If there were no regulations, our business leaders would not be FORCED to abrogate the laws. It’s a simple 1 + 1 = 2.

By Realist

September 13, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

When the motive is financial profit, corruption is sure to spawn, thats certain. Is there corruption in big oil and big business? You bet there is. Is it as embedded and systematic as the left would have you beleive? The same bunch who thinks we intentionally orchestrated 9/11 because of oil? Of course not. Like everything, there is the far left, the far right, and then in the middle somewhere there is the truth.

Regarding HP, having worked closely with many of thier sales forces representing thier storage and unix server lines which are among thier thier largest profit centers, I dont understand how in the hell a company started by two brilliant men in a garage wound up being led by women who’s visions have proven to be disastrous for HP (Carly, Patricia).

There are certainly more direct and forceful means of exposing an informant, not to mention some less obvious and closer to the definition of legal.

By time for the truth

September 13, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

Already the lefties are venting their poisonous spleens. It took bog simpleton just 4 mins to hurl visceral personal abuse.

Very obviously corporate America is always going to be more “corrupt” than small family owned businesses because there’s infinitely more at stake monetarily and collectively/individually for so many more folks.

Some industries are known for corruption - DNC fundraising under sick Willie, HiTllary, the guttersnipe McCauliffe and the AlBore was as sleazy and corrupt as it gets. Abramoff and others are banged up or co-operating with the feds. Lennon (PBUH) and McCartney said money cant buy you love but it sure buys just about anything else.

The leftie morons on here smugly seem to very conveniently forget that business folks simply reflect society at large - which explains why demoNcrats get so much money from many very wealthy ‘guilt ridden’ liberal types. White collar criminals are every where though - most of the major US corporate frauds happened under sick Willie’s watch and were prosecuted under Bush’s watch. If nothing else that tells us something about the tone (and expectations) that liberals set.

It seems harold has already been very busy sniffing oil/petrol this morning - his ludicrous trademark rant about advertising and “big oil” is as worthless as ever. I am ever more convinced Harold is an extremely sad “bus spotter”.

It is pleasing that petrol prices have come down, which will help the GOP in November. Ignorant morons usually blame a president for high petrol prices even though invariably a president has even less control over such pricing than say the sexual predator sick Willie and MLK had over keeping on their adulterous trousers!!

By George Clements

September 13, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten, I think you may have proposed a topic today that is too deep for your mental health support group to handle. I don’t see so many cheap shots or name-calling. As an aside, am I the only reader not to believe that jbmlaw is an attorney?

By CJ

September 13, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw @9:14 “We are better off with the natural ethics or the marketplace”

The natural ethics of the marketplace is to exploit workers. The natural ethics of the market place is to process food in ways that will kill us (read “The Jungle”). The natural ethics of the market place is to have rolling blackouts to manipulate the electricity market. The natural ethics of the market place is to dump chemicals into the sources of our drinking water. Better off with the natural ethics of the market place? I don’t think so.

By Dusty

September 13, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Seems to me you are forgetting the most unethical member of all—the person who leaked company policies that were private. This leaker betrayed the company that was paying him for his work. I haven’t read that H/P was doing anything wrong before all this happened. It was simply someone trying to get ahead by giving away H/P plans to another company or faction. Maybe I missed something.(Or maybe journalists like to protect “leakers” such as Armistead, etc. and will not identify them as a code of honor.)

The second wrong was, of course, the way the company went about finding the “leaker”. That is indefensible.

But I am reminded of traitors to a country. Obviously, there is no treason until the traitor turns to betrayal. This was a company traitor and the first one guilty.

By harold

September 13, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

time for the truth, just for one day, count the commercials you see/hear. make a categorical tally and you’ll find over 80% are oil based- cars, gasoline. hell just open an AJC. harold thinks every page has a car ad on it. convert the tally to minutes and you’ll find that you are being told (on average) for over TWO FULL HOURS EVERY SINGLE DAY that you need a car and can’t live without one and that your car makes you sexy and powerful and safe. it is little wonder we are all so sad fat and weak. except harold.

By getalife

September 13, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

Check this out

By IM A TROLL

September 13, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

My name “troll” is actually a known and accepted term in the blog world.

I enter blogs not to engage in discussion or stay on topic but to inflame other bloggers and destroy honest debate.

I often use mutliple ID’s in carrying out my trollish task.

I offer nothing of substance to the discussion only vitriol and attacks.

Im usually a loser and have no job but plenty of time to sit and bash others.

I use screen names like getalife, crispix, wheaties, redneck convert, redneck Americas Al Queda, White Jesus, and Jim’s A Dummy.

The best way to treat me is to ignore me completely. Even though I wont go away, because lets face it, I have no life or job or anything better to do, at least you won’t lower yourself to my pitiful level.

Happy Blogging!

By harold

September 13, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

Why was HP able to find their leaker but Dubya, with the full powers of the CIA and FBI at his disposal, was not able to find his leaker? WHy is that, do ya think?

Why did Mrs. HP have to step down for acquiring her board’s phone records when our government insists that obtaining phone call records does not violate privacy?

How is it unethical for HP to check up on its own board members, KNOWING one is a leaker, but it is fine for our government to listen to anybody it wants just for dialing an international number?

By Blog Simple

September 13, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

Harold, take a leak.

By time for the truth

September 13, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

time for the truth knows harold is lying or severly exaggerating - or perhaps just watching the “wrong” channels. the fair and balanced cable news channel time for the truth watches most certainly has some car ads on - even occasional British Petroeleum ads - but does NOT EVER rise to the 80% level. They say that the loud/aggressive car sales garage ads are aimed at the most moronic of consumers which tells time for the truth something about the kind of TV programmes/channels harold watches.

time for the truth rarely watches the local channels in Atlanta, becuse there is NOTHING on them any more worth bothering with and they constantly lie through their pearly white teeth on their so called weather forecasts!!

By Jay

September 13, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

Here’s a valuable opinion piece published elsewhere in the AJC:

History will show that the U.S. government terrified its own citizens into supporting the invasion of Iraq.

Time and again, Americans already shaky in the wake of Sept. 11 were warned by their leaders that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that unless we intervened, the Iraqi leader might provide those weapons to his allies in al-Qaida.

If we waited to take action, President Bush warned, the smoking gun might come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

We now know, of course, that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no programs to create them. Last fall, the CIA apparently concluded that there had also been no pre-war ties between Saddam and al-Qaida terrorists, a finding seconded by a report from the Senate Intelligence Committee made public just last week. The committee found that the Bush administration had good reason to know that no such ties existed, but persisted in those claims anyway.

The administration responded to that finding in typical fashion, with White House spokesman Tony Snow dismissing the report as old news. What we need to do is look forward, not backward, Snow argued last week.

There’s some truth to that, of course. The news out of both Iraq and Afghanistan is increasingly glum, and as Snow suggests, we can’t allow ourselves to be distracted by meaningless debates about the past.

However, questions about the honesty, wisdom, judgment and competence of our current leadership are far from meaningless. We are not debating the relative merits of Thomas Jefferson vs. John Adams; we are attempting to decide whether our current leaders can be trusted to handle the challenges we face.

It matters, for instance, that Vice President Dick Cheney now says that the Bush administration would have invaded Iraq even if it had known that Saddam had no WMD and no ties to al-Qaida. Intrigued by the admission on “Meet the Press” Sunday, host Tim Russert pressed the point with Cheney:

“So if the CIA said to you [in 2003] ‘Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction, his chemical and biological have been degraded, he has no nuclear program under way,’ you’d still have invaded Iraq?”

Yes, Cheney said.

In other words, Iraqi WMD weren’t the reason we went to war, they were merely the excuse that Cheney and his colleagues needed to scare up public support. That’s a relevant piece of information as Americans try to decide how much faith they can put in this administration.

Last week, Army Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid gave his fellow Americans another relevent piece of data concerning the basic competence of the Bush administration.

Scheid, who is about to retire, was a colonel with U.S. Central Command in 2002, helping to plan the invasion of Iraq. According to Scheid, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld banned Pentagon officials from planning for a post-war military occupation, to the point that he warned officers that “he would fire the next person” who talked about the need to prepare for an occupation.

The incompetence that reveals is mind-numbing, and is no doubt responsible for the unnecessary deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. soldiers, in addition to tens of thousands of Iraqis. And it matters — it matters very much — that the people responsible for such blunders are still in power, still making decisions and still setting policy.

— Jay Bookman, for the editorial board (jbookman@ajc.com)

By Rod

September 13, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

A nice blog and then TFTT has to come in with the “left” insults at 9:53. TFTT can’t think without insulting the lefts for something. Shows she doesn’t think about facts - just insults and critisizes.

By White Jesus

September 13, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

Yay! I’m a troll:

1.(n) -A pathetic and moronic person who maintains a blog with an unhealthy obsessive-compulsive drive, especially angsty goths (sorry to all the likeable goths out there). The content of their blogs usually includes events that no sane person would care about. Here’s sample of what a blog troll might write on their blog: “today, I ate a sanwich. It bad - it was just ok, mediocre, I guess you could call it. After that I read a few chapters out of an Anne Rice book and was deeply moved by her erotic descriptions of gay vampires fornicating. . Then I took a nap.

2.(n) -A depraved individual who sits in front of a computer all day and posts flames of an idiotic or pseudo-intellectual nature on public forums and private websites. Many of these people actually become emotional about what is said on the afore-said mediums and feel it is their duty to punish those who disagree with them. They too may pursue this object in an obsessive-compulsive manner.

Who does number 2 sound like?

By Curious Observer

September 13, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Ah, yes, Jbmlaw wants the marketplace to take care of corporate transgressions. It’s the standard line of anarchists—which was what “libertarians” were called before they decided the proper name carried too much baggage. In a long line that stretches past John Mill and Jeremy Bentham to Guy Fawlkes and even some medieval rebels against authority, Jbmlaw and his kind really want no government.

Corporate wrong-doers need to be punished even more severely than individual miscreants. They enjoy the legal protections accorded to individuals without the responsibilities. Go to your state court on practically any day and watch jbmlaw and his cronies clog up the court calendar in an effort to beat some hapless insurance policyholder out of a claim. Then watch these scabs on the political body lobby the legislature for laws that given them even more marketplace advantage.

And we are supposed to allow the marketplace to take care of corporate figures who knowingly violate the law by providing a false identity in order to secure the private information of another? Nonsense. Prosecute such people to the fullest extent of the law, and sue the corporations they represent. Don’t give a pass to the malfeasance of a legal entity.

By jbmlaw

September 13, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

CJ @ 9:58, you forgot the preface: “Rise up, workers of the world. You have nothing to lose but your chains.”

Also, George @ 9:54, no, you are not the only leftist who thinks I am not an attorney, as if that makes any difference in the substance I post. Of course, the leftists are always wrong - I am licensed and current in three states.

By time for the truth

September 13, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

harold, time for the truth doesn’t ever soil his hands with opening a far left pandering multi culti ajc except to put it down on the floor for any puppy he needs to housetrain.

By Hadden Knough

September 13, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Humans run businesses. Humans run governments. Stockholders, consumers, and voters, a/k/a humans, provide direction to both. Why then is anyone surprised that businesses and governments exhibit the same foibles as humans? So, humans, do your job well and perhaps they will do better at theirs as a result.

By jbmlaw

September 13, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

Curious, you may be correct - I find myself less patient with the nanny-staters with each passing day. Maybe I am an anarchist.

Probably the only diffences between me and the leftist anarchists of the 1920s is that I do not agitate to try to install a constrictive regime, and I do not advocate murdering political opponents, and I tolerate differing points of view…

I take it back, I guess I don’t have much in common with the leftist anarchists.

By Brian Curtis

September 13, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

Dusty, are you serious? Exposing the wrongdoing of an employer is now to be considered “traitorous”? Gee, treason sure is getting a word-workout lately.

Why, exactly, should an employer expect its workers to turn a blind eye to their activities—especially when exposing those activities would benefit the public good? Is there some special “loyalty” clause that they sign when they start work? If so, it seems to be one-way, which is a sucker’s bet.

By Van

September 13, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

Captain Freedom,

Have you ever heard of Sarbanes-Oxley? This was a misguided attempt by the government to “regulate” corporate industry. I now have a special accounting code for all SOX (as we call it) related activities. This has gotten down to the level of how long a system will track your last passwords - the last 4 right now.

Everytime the government puts a new regulation on top of business, some lawyer - sorry jbmlaw - will try to find a loop hole or someway of side stepping the new rule.

This whole process adds to the cost to comsumers, costing you more and more. Gee ani’t it swell.

By time for the truth

September 13, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

the moronic mental midget Rod is biting very nicely again this morning - see how easy it is to get the leftist sheeple to bleat. I also note that as ever the snivelling moron rod doesn’t actually disagree with or challenge anything I posted - it just petulantly stamps its itty bitty little pigeon toed leftist feet. feel better now moron rod??

By Realist

September 13, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

Its interesting that some insist on lowering our heads of goverment, who are fighting terrorist and looking out for the safety and sovereignty of our nation, to the level of the common man or woman, whether American or Iraqi, terrorist or criminal.

Everyone is not equal in their duties, entitlements, or limitations Harold.

By Rod

September 13, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw - if you’re a licensed attorney, why are you always online? Don’t you ever get any cases to work?

By time for the truth

September 13, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

Who does number 2 sound like?

white jesus, moron rod, moron clark, feminazi JK, rednekks vermin … really all the other lefties!!

By Rod

September 13, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

TFTT - it’s so easy to get you to bite on something! All I have to do is point out how illogical your posts are and you get your panties all in a wad. Priceless!!

snicker

By jbmlaw

September 13, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

Curious, your references to John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham are mysterious to me. They are the fathers of utilitarianism and the pain/pleasure calculus, intellectual antecedents to the modern “ask not what your country can do for you” democrats. Surely you are not calling modern democrats “anarchists?” The opposite seems to be the case, to me.

By Van

September 13, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

Jay,

Just how did “History will show that the U.S. government terrified its own citizens into supporting the invasion of Iraq.” translate into Congress giving the President the authority and funds to wage this war?

By jbmlaw

September 13, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Curious, similarly, your Guy Fawlkes reference is false. TFTT, please correct me if I have this backwards. Fawlkes was agitating to restore the catholic crown, and thus was anything but an libertarian?

By jbmlaw

September 13, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

Good morning Rod. I can draft a page of legal writing per hour, including research. There are few who match my efficiency in writing. Back in an hour or so.

By White Jesus

September 13, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

TFTT: first dog to bite.

By JK

September 13, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

Its interesting that some insist on lowering our heads of goverment, who are fighting terrorist and looking out for the safety and sovereignty of our nation, to the level of the common man or woman, whether American or Iraqi, terrorist or criminal.

Yeah! Good poing, R. That is so wrong. A sitting head of state should be afforded privacy and respect, and should not be dragged away from his important duties to answer questions about his p-nis, or whether he chased some chick around a desk ten years before becoming head of state! A sitting head of state should have some measure of executive privilege — as long as he’s not looting the treasury for his friends and lying about wars and stuff!

By Blog Simple

September 13, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

Yeah, few can match law for writing his name in the snow. He’s got a real leg up on everyone else.

By time for the truth

September 13, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

moron rod … as ever YOU ARE A PATHETIC DISHONEST LIAR!!

you actually said NOTHING about my posts lacking logic … you merely bemoaned/emptily asserted in your usual extremely sullen and obtuse knuckle dragging style the fact that I had supposedly once again factually confronted/challenged the verminous left!!

laughing and sneering at pinko imbeciles like you is one of the small everyday pleasures on this blog - thank you so very much for providing such a ludicrously easy target!!

By @@

September 13, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

Jim: I enjoy commenting here. It is often a place where I can actually learn something from substantive discussions posted. That objective seems to have fallen apart earlier than usual today though.

Anyway, I don’t take the time to educate myself on business or economics. I have been reading about proposed changes in Sarbanes Oxley. It seems as though the act has placed considerable constraints on American business, cutting into profits due to administrative costs, and has affected our country’s ability to compete globally. I could be totally off target here, but can this act really prove to benefit our country in the long run, or can it be one of those well-intended efforts resulting in unintended consequences?

I’ll check back later.

By Dusty

September 13, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

Jay??Bookman???

Is this the only way Bookman can get posters here to read his column?

If you are not Bookman, how about giving us YOUR opinion, not HIS entire editorial? OK?

By time for the truth

September 13, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

dingy off white jesus

abusing simpleton wankers like you is NOT biting - its simply doing the work of Allah!!!

By Van

September 13, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

In the old days, a company wanted to retain thier employees. They did this by giving them a little extra.

At one time, (big business with telephones) would hold district wide meeting over three days at a resort. We had funds for training and travel.

Today that is no longer the case, it is all driven by the bottom line. We no longer have 3 year plans, we have at most 3 quarter plans.

By Realist

September 13, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

Good morning to you to JK. Good to see you.

I think you have me gauged incorrectly. I do not dislike or judge Clinton becuase of his affair with Monica, though it was poor taste and bad judgement (not to mention she was ugly and fat and Id think he couldve done better), I did not nessicarily support the millions spent investigating the affair much less the much larger price the country paid with its dignity as a nation.

I hold Mr. Clinton with contempt because of the cowardly way in which he conducted himself AFTER the affair. I despise him for his pathetic weakness and cowardness in how he handled himself in most presidential matters. He was the definition of a figurehead. No backbone. No real ideology other than to be guided by polls.

And for me, the last straw with him was when he lied under oath about an affair, that had he owned up from the beginning, there would have been no need for the country to dragged through the mud and millions spent.

It wasnt about the event, it was about his lack of integrity following a mistake any man could make. It was pathetic.

By getalife

September 13, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw is a fake like realist.

Probably the same person paid to bait bloggers here.

By White Jesus

September 13, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

TFTT: Pathetic, you give me good laughs. I thank you.

By harold

September 13, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

harold only watches fox news and smallville.

russ is so snarky! amanda can’t stand him. and ken the weather guy looks just like magnum PI. he should buy a ferarri and an englishman butler. hey TFTT you could work for Ken!

By Middle America

September 13, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

Corruption is something that have to be proven, and should be if it exists. I am no fan of Big Oil, but I think it would be unfair to characterize the entire industry as corrupt, or unethical. That being said, I think Enron has taught us that we can’t afford to be naive. Large corporations like Enron and Big Oil have the ability to adversely affect our economy. The power blackouts in California for example. Power traders from Enron used the wake of de-regulation to manipulate the price of energy causing major problems for California’s economy. It wasn’t as if Enron put out a company policy condoning unethical behavior, but those employees acted improperly, and all the while shady deals were being conducted at the top too. So being skeptical of large corporations is our obligation as stewards of our economy.

As for undue influence. I can’t believe you have to even ask this question. John Q. Public doesn’t have money to donate to political campaigns. His only influence is one vote on a Tuesday in November. Wealthy people, have money to spare, and often have contacts that allow them one on one interaction with candidates. That doesn’t mean the candidate does what these people want. But if all I have is a vote, and the CEO of ExonMobil gives them money, and gets face time with the candidate, how can you not say that there is undue influence involved? As for Big Oil having more influence among the GOP, it is obviously true. It’s not a shady thing, it’s just that the GOP generally hasn’t shown an interest or committment to finding alternative energy sources and they favor drilling in places like ANWAR and offshore. And Democrats generally favor more environmental issues, which conflict with Big Oil. So if you’re Big Oil, which basket are you putting your money in?

It’s not all about partisanship, Jim. Some of us don’t blame the individuals, we blame the system. Until elections are held without candidates raising money from constituents, then there will always be somebody who gets more influence. Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.

By time for the truth

September 13, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

jbm

pinko observer is utterly wrong Guy Fawkes was NOT an “anarchist” or a libertarian - even of his day - he was indeed a treasonous papist. Though there is still this lame joke used in Engalnd that he was the only man ever to enter parliament with honest intentions.

By clarkslawga

September 13, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

jmblaw.

You’ll have to wait a while for TFTT to look that up.

A fake English guy wouldn’t know that kind of thing. So give it a minute. Googling Guy Fawkes takes time.

Fake

By time for the truth

September 13, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

all the Atlanta TV weather liars are dire - I especially loathe the wsb crew!!! I never ever watch the CBS thing. Fox 5 is for complete morons though - except for Fox News Sunday at 10am.

By George Clements

September 13, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

JBMLAW, in his posting at 10:19, again claimed he is an attorney and then accused me of being a leftist by even raising the question. I’m definitely not a leftist but, in the spirit of full disclosure, I should announce that Mr. Wooten’s blog is being read carefully as part of a national study as to whether on-line groups like this can actually help mentally ill people. Of course, not everyone participating is ill but Mr. Wooten’s normal topics — not today’s which was the point of my first posting — generally trigger reactions from some people that mental health professionals find very interesting. The invectives and name calling are indicative of some deeper feelings that can only be broached through the safety of the anonymous postings of a blog. If each name caller were to be asked to disclose his or her real name and address, I wonder how that would change the nature of the discussions.

Ask yourselves, members of Mr. Wooten’s mental health support group, whether you are really trying to enlighten yourselves and others through the commentary, or just venting for the sake of venting.

I don’t beleve Mr. Wooten intends for this blog to be simply a repository for insults. I think he really does want to spur meaningful discussion. If those of you who simply want to disparage others would take a break, maybe that might happen.

By clarkslawga