Jack,
I think we have to wonder how much of the past thirty years of public policy may have been influenced by the Governor's need to keep his secret and how much favoritism was bestowed on those who knew the secret. I think there's no doubt that the Sellwood Bridge Moorage is just one of countless examples. Those papers need to be gone through with a fine tooth comb and anything that looks at all suspicions should be investigated.

Many thanks, my friend, for speaking the truth about this horrible man. One hopes that the bullsh*t is almost over.

I am curious, Jack, how you can advocate possible lethal use of force in this case, but be so vehement in previous use of force cases - the past two Portland Police shootings, for instance.
This is as far from a need for shots fired as the moon is from the earth.

You know, my wife is doing some consulting for OHS, and a month or so ago--before the Goldschmidt fandango--I mused at the judgment behind privatizing the state's history. Of course, the righties are trying to privatize things as quickly as possible, and often it falls to nonprofits to pick up the slack. The truth is, though, that the ramifications are more than monetary--once you farm out key functions, you no longer have legal control over how those functions are executed.

My concern in that post was that this is happening under the rader (how many people knew OHS was now not a government agency?). If we're going to privatize government, it should be intentional, not done inadvertantly, as a response to fiscal or political pressure. Ironically, now it may well be the righties who get stung by their zeal to privatize. What do they have to say about it, now?

That post is here, case any one cares...

http://notesontheatrocities.blogspot.com/2004/05/inadvertent-government.html

As for the lethal force, I was being rhetorical. I think the receptionist at the Oregon Historical Society would cooperate fully and wouldn't even have to be tasered.

I can see it now:

State Trooper #1: "Show me your hands!!! Put your hands where I can see them!!!"

Receptionist: "My nails are wet!!!"

ST#1: "Where are the Goldschmidt papers? Give them up! NOW!"

R: "These are just his lunch takeout forms from '74, for crying out loud!"

ST#1: "Hand them over. Do it NOW or I'll shoot this bust of C.E.S. Wood!!"

State Trooper #2: "Do as he says, ma'am. I've seen him shoot images of Oregon historical figures before. Last week he took out a portrait of Fred Meyer in front of a Freddy's jewelry store."

Why should the OHS be a gov't agency at all? I always thought it was a non-profit body of some sort. Semi-legal paper issues aside, what does the OHS do besides run a museum?

Just a thought on the "righties zeal to privatize" note...when I was in the AF, it was the Clinton administration driving privatization down the military's throat as part of the effort to downsize the military. Most of the government that Clinton downsized was in the military, something the military needed at the time. And now some folks think the military is too small...it's a cyclical thing.

Privatizing is a blunt instrument to cut government. The cost estimation process is stacked against the government, so most outsourcing efforts go through...and indeed a fair number of them save money. Having lived through a military unit being partially outsourced and another that kept the work "in-house" (I was an AF engineer), it's very traumatic and something that should not be done lightly. Believe, it's the beancounters driving the train during outsourcing, not anyone who cares for the poor folks enduring the process. Tie or close goes to outsourcing, as there are big government contractors out there who have better influence with their delegations in Washington than the unions do, regardless who's in power.

However, also having had to negotiate on multiple occasions with AFSCME (a major government union), sometimes things work well, but other times, logical cuts are stonewalled to the point that the government will self-inflict outsourcing to break the logjam.

At the moment, the right is using privatization to crack stonewalling government unions, the same way that Clinton used it to crack an uncooperative military (and its unions in partially and totally civilianized units) when I was serving. It's easy to use the partisan label when attacking outsourcing/privatization. If Kerry wins, the right will soon be assailing the left for privatizing critical functions. And, the right will be as partially correct as the left is now.

Your use of the term "gentleman" is a huge stretch of the word by any means. He lost that designation the 2nd day he raped a young 14 year old.
The first day he was a sleaze, a crook, and a rapist. The second time, he sunk to the bottom of the pit. IMHO