<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sunday&#8230;Still mostly Superferry</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ilind.net/2007/09/02/sundaystill-mostly-superferry/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ilind.net/2007/09/02/sundaystill-mostly-superferry/</link>
	<description>Ian Lind • Online daily from Kaaawa, Hawaii</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:47:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: stevelaudig</title>
		<link>http://ilind.net/2007/09/02/sundaystill-mostly-superferry/comment-page-1/#comment-219</link>
		<dc:creator>stevelaudig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:17:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ilind.net/2007/09/02/sundaystill-mostly-superferry/#comment-219</guid>
		<description>The Superferry owners wanted to be free from the constraints of law because the law adds costs. The executive branch of the state was agreeable to this &quot;law avoidance&quot; [query: is shoplifting any more or less a &quot;law avoidance&quot;] Many in the legislative branch are complicit in the executive branch&#039;s law avoidance scheme. The judiciary and the public are not. The superferry [query: What&#039;s so super about it anyway?] owners gambled, thought the house [the executive branch and many of the legislative branch] would fix the table. Law enforcement [the judicial branch] and the &quot;posse&quot; [the enraged citizenry] showed up with a rope and hung the outlaws. 

All the superferry owners had to do was play it straight in the first place and not try to cheap it out by placing their avoided costs on the environment and the residents.

Cutting corners results in losses. If the &quot;super&quot; owners were willing to cut legal corners, one wonders what &quot;safety&quot; and environmental corners they actually are cutting. False in one thing, false in all things.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Superferry owners wanted to be free from the constraints of law because the law adds costs. The executive branch of the state was agreeable to this &#8220;law avoidance&#8221; [query: is shoplifting any more or less a "law avoidance"] Many in the legislative branch are complicit in the executive branch&#8217;s law avoidance scheme. The judiciary and the public are not. The superferry [query: What's so super about it anyway?] owners gambled, thought the house [the executive branch and many of the legislative branch] would fix the table. Law enforcement [the judicial branch] and the &#8220;posse&#8221; [the enraged citizenry] showed up with a rope and hung the outlaws. </p>
<p>All the superferry owners had to do was play it straight in the first place and not try to cheap it out by placing their avoided costs on the environment and the residents.</p>
<p>Cutting corners results in losses. If the &#8220;super&#8221; owners were willing to cut legal corners, one wonders what &#8220;safety&#8221; and environmental corners they actually are cutting. False in one thing, false in all things.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

