I have no idea what goes on in the WSJ OpEd offices.
I cannot tell you for sure that their Water Cooler is laced with LSD; I have no idea if they are drunk by the opening bell every morning. I’ve never done the research to see if key persons there played college football sans helmets.
But I can tell you that anyone of these excuses explains the unfathomably bizarre utterances that spews forth from that alternative universe on a regular basis. The asylum inmates there are willing to give even the most egregious offenses a free pass — so long as said offenses originates from a corporation.
The latest evidence of collective dementia was today’s syphilitic venture titled The SEC vs. Goldman. The editors, hellbent on proving they are only visiting here from Alpha Centauri, defend the actions of Goldie as “more a case of hindsight bias than financial villainy.”
Rather than spend time dissecting the specifics, I prefer to direct you to the insanity’s source, and let you judge for yourself . . .
The SEC vs. Goldman
WSJ, April 19, 2010
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.