Caroline Kennedy for Senator.

I'm in no position to have anything to say that could either hurt or help Caroline Kennedy in her bid to assume the interim appointment to New York's senate seat.

What I will say has more to do with personal attributes Ms. Kennedy possesses. I would also like to shine a light on the attitude of some in the press and in politics that is highlighted by this article questioning Ms. Kennedy's qualifications.

I'll do the latter first: Where do all these idiots get off thinking that they are somehow entitled to the Senate seat? Can someone please point out to me where it says in the Constitution that one must have paid dues in politics in order to receive the award of an interim appointment? I have serious concerns about such an attitude in a Democracy where an expectation is encouraged that one gets a political position based solely on time put in. It's contrary to American politics and this notion should be shed or at least pointed out as anathema to the American polity.

That being said: Ms. Kennedy has every qualification necessary for the office she seeks. With many of the idiots who get elected I think she'd bring a dose of idealism and integrity to the office. She would not owe anyone for her position, save the governor.

On to the former issue of her qualifications: Ms. Kennedy is smart, down to earth, and capable. After meeting her once, I can say from personal experience that she's without artifice and exactly the type of personality we need in elected office. She's honest and without hidden agenda. I don't think anyone can top her when it comes to being the ideal personality for the job. Unlike other senators, she carries herself with a modest self-assurance instead of an in-your-face narcissism.

I think Caroline Kennedy is the best choice because she is seeking the office for the good of our country.

Beware of the dark side of capitaism: Corporatism

Stories like this one underscore why privatization is not the cure-all its proponents claim.

I'll be the first to admit that capitalism is a great system. When it's doing what it does best, it's incomparable.

But, as with all isms it carries the seeds of its own failures within its strengths.

Private companies that seek government contracts resort to scratching the back of public officials, and if they're lucky, they may get a president who supports their efforts with no bid contracts.

The upshot is this: When private companies gain government favor without the necessary competition of the marketplace, then we get a system not unlike that of the Third Reich---corporatism. A corporatist state is one where corporate interests become one and the same with the state and mutual backscratching for business is the norm rather than the exception. Here's a lengthy definition of corporatism.

Privatization of government functions is, to be punny, tricky business. Some government functions should never be privatized because they involve such heavy policy matters that direct government oversight is necessary to insure that the sovereign (read: the people) has a say.

Capitalism is great, but when business seeks favor through patronage rather than through competition, then we're not dealing with capitalism anymore---it becomes corporativism. That's nothing more than a polite way to say fascism.