Comments on: Obama catches the anti-corruption bug

By: طراحی سایت

طراحی سایت — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 08:18:00 +0000

Very excited about this chirnside park medical centre طراحی سایت بهینه سازی سایت

By: Faré

Faré — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:11:00 +0000

I will dance over your mass graves once you achieve to get elected incorruptible people like Robespierre and Pol Pot -- yes, "Incorruptible" was their surname, because they were wholly untouched by any argument, completely raptured by ideology.

The enemy is political power. Corruption is the mollification of political power by the interests of real people. Incorruptible officials means sheer evil for the sake of evil.

Corruption is the symptom of society resisting political power, just like fever is a symptom of a body resisting infection. Removing the symptom is not likely to make the patient better -- but much worse off.

Any political power is destruction of the civil society now, and political abuse now and later. To think otherwise is to completely ignore the nature and dynamics of political power. Learn the Law of Bitur Camember.

By: Raven C

Raven C — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:00:31 +0000

I believe that most people WOULD vote Libertarian if:

1) They new what that meant.
2) The party hadn’t been sucessfully demonized as extremists by its rivals
3) We weren’t locked into a never-ending 2 party systems that wastes votes for any other parties and makes it necessary to simply vote for the lesser of 2 evils.

By: Todd K.

Todd K. — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 10:27:50 +0000

Libertarians have been saying this stuff for decades. If Democratic voters didn't want to benefit from graft and corruption they would have been voting for Libertarians all along.

The “Google for government” bill? That's a cheesy attempt to appeal to young voters. Maybe next he'll propose "iPod for Justice" legislation.

By: Guillermo Wechsler

Guillermo Wechsler — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:54:02 +0000

Obama's speech goes in the valuable direction. He doesn't need to be immaculate, but persevere. However, setting up standards for NC in roles definitions; standards for information transparency; assessments of NC compliance and capacity to act in order to assure education and enforcement is something I wouldn't leave in any politician hands. I would like to have democrats, republicans, independents, etc playing this music. However, we as citizens, can -socially and collaborative-define the NC standards for different gov roles, regulatory agencies roles, and specially by an anomalous role that work against the foundational principles of our republic: lobbyists.
Lobbyism thrives in the gray areas. It connect justice-legislation-Whitehouse. It connects politics-corporations-media. Lobbyyism is an enabler of non-transparent networked collectives defining spaces of collaboration and life for the whole community. If they transform themselves in a transparent activity, they may even become beneficial. Today, they are weakening our democratic institutions and contributing to the depletion of the common. So, from my perspective, our main challenge is to build the standards, to make it a fundamental criteria for assessing public identities, and to offer them to whom may be interested in being "certified" as compliance by the NC collective.

By: Scott Snider

Scott Snider — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:40:12 +0000

I have real questions about Sen. Obama's commitment to fighting corruption. He was concerned about corruption in Mayor Daley's administration until he decided that he needed da Mayor's help in Illinois. All of a sudden he had no problem endorsing Daley's run for reelection as well as that of an alderman facing corruption charges.

By: Dan Miller

Dan Miller — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:22:48 +0000

Re: Jardinero’s point, we could see how it worked during a prospective first term, and if we were really having problems, increase pay substantially for executive branch service. I’d much rather appointees get paid by the taxpayers rather than cashing in from private entities.

By: Jardinero1

Jardinero1 — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:47:04 +0000

I think number two is laughable if you expect to find any appointees willing to do the job. If you spend your life building a career in say, the natural gas industry, and receive an appointment to the F.E.R.C. in an Obama administration what’s the likelihood you would accept the job. There’s little chance you will take a two, four or eight year government job if it means unemployment for two years while your contacts and skills grow stale and the industry moves ahead of you.

Appointees come from the industries they will regulate and from watchdog groups for those same industries. Will the watchdog appointees be allowed to go straight back to their previous employers and take immediate advantage of the contacts and influence they developed?

By: Randy Sailer

Randy Sailer — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 03:35:40 +0000

Links seem to be broken in this post....

By: David

David — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:13:20 +0000

PDF links not found...