Walter Hinteler wrote:Welcome to A2K, pascal1947!
Obviously he referred to Club700, Finn.
So now Texas, Florida, Kansas and Ohio have been surrendered by you Lefties to Pat Robinson?
Cronyism & The Business of Government
Cronyism and The Business of Government; A Progressive Executive's View
RJ Eskow
01.05.2006
The recess appointment of Julie Myers and other friends, relatives, and assorted cronies is a good illustration of how this Administration works: The former CEO's shallow and cynical son has inherited his Dad's job, and is running the enterprise into the ground with the complicity of his friends. Don't believe the hype: the GOP isn't the party of good management.
I've been there. As an executive and a consultant, I've seen the wreckage that substandard leaders and their unqualified appointees leave behind. When the new manager walks into to his or her first staff meeting and starts spouting self-important nonsense, the most knowledgeable and experienced employees will exchange exasperated glances. As the new boss keeps generating uninformed opinions and intrusive memos, the best and the brightest will start looking for new jobs -- ones where they can do what they were trained to do. From there, it's only a matter of time before the department deteriorates and the organization's mission is compromised -- perhaps fatally.
The press assured us in 2000 that Bush, as the first Chief Executive with an MBA, would be a "CEO President." In a way, they were right. In the real world, good managers aren't the only ones who get the top job. Sometimes the position goes to somebody who's well connected, or -- as with W. -- the son of a previous CEO. In that sense, Bush is the First Crony.
The appointment of Gen. Myers' niece Julie has received the most attention, in part because of her glaring lack of qualifications. What Harvard Business School professor would suggest that you give somebody who currently supervises 170 employees responsibility for a department with 20,000 employees, despite no apparent managerial talent? Myers recently married Michael Chertoff's Chief of Staff, John Wood (an Ashcroft crony and former law clerk for Clarence Thomas), and we all know how well Chertoff and his managers performed during Katrina. Crisis? What crisis?
But Myers isn't the only bad appointment the President made today. Hans von Spakovsky was appointed to the Federal Election Commission, based on his record of disenfranchising voters to improve Republican electoral chances -- or, as the GOP euphemistically calls it, "voting integrity." Another recess appointment to the FEC was Robert Lenhard, who -- as Arianna points out -- worked hard to overturn the McCain-Feingold Act. (And guess what? He's married to Viveca Novak, too! She's the TIME journalist who may have kept Karl Rove out of the klink.)
It's a Bush pattern to hire managers that have contempt for the functions of the departments they will be managing (i.e., John Bolton at the UN). These FEC appointments show that CEO Bush has targeted the electoral process itself -- as defined by McCain-Feingold and other current laws -- either for 'benign neglect' or intentional dismantling.
From experience, I can feel the sinking morale throughout Julie Myers' department in the pit of my stomach. I've lived through the appointment of unqualified managers. Keep terrorists from slipping through the borders? Treat refugees fairly? Those employees aren't thinking about that today. Instead they're standing around the coffee machine, trying to figure out how they'll do their jobs (or keep them, for that matter) under the supervision of this unqualified manager.
Nowhere is the CEO President's poor management more evident than in the area of national security. According to his own party's rhetoric, security is the #1 management objective of our government. Yet, in addition to Myers, he appointed Tracy Henke to the Department of Homeland Security -- as Executive Director of the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness.
Ms. Henke's qualifications? Well, like Myers and the President, she has a relative in a position of power -- her brother, Mitchell Daniels, is Director of the Office of Management and Budget. But that's not her only qualification. She's been a John Ashcroft crony -- er, associate -for years. She earned some notoriety for censoring a Justice Department report to remove references to potentially discriminatory police behavior:
She is now in a position to dole out critically-needed funds to cities and local regions -- a process that's been scandalously mismanaged and used for political favoritism under this Administration. Some of our professional security experts are no doubt sitting at their PC's right now, polishing their resumes and surfing the Net for other job opportunities.
So what's a business person to think? What would I say if I were a management consultant brought into this organization? I would say that these appointments compromise two critical goals: national security, and the democratic process. This CEO's hiring decisions show poor managerial judgment. They endanger the future of the enterprise and impede its ability to meet its key objectives.
In today's corporate world, substandard executives like Bush usually don't last -- and if they break the law, they face prosecution (at least in New York). Sure, he'll be gone in a few years, but when mismanagement is this severe you need to challenge the entire Board of Directors. In this case, that's the Republican Party and the broken electoral process itself.
Or so this business person says.
Good news for the Democrats along the lines of Nihm's question "Why doesn't America have a Religious Left?":
86 Evangelical leaders join to fight global warming. (New York Times, Registration required.)
Oh...there IS a religious left!!!!!
Where is Nimh's question?
I get updates from them.
Nimh's question is nowhere in particular -- I don't think he started a thread about it. He just asks it every now and then in other political threads.
Now, the really interesting question that arises is (given that these christian bodies Thomas' link references represent a traditional christian understanding of mans' responsibility and stewardship of the environment and of god's creatures) just how did such a large portion of the evangelical community land in the pockets of business interests?
blatham wrote:... just how did such a large portion of the evangelical community land in the pockets of business interests?
Perhaps that particular association is - to a large degree - merely one of your own illusions. What exactly does the phrase "business interests" really mean?
What exactly are you contesting or suggesting here, george? That the term "business interests" is without meaning?
In the context of this discussion (as opposed to, say another context such as the influence of pharmaceutical companies on government policy, or the influence of the tobacco industry, or the influence of the big auto companies on, say, seat belt legislation or emissions standards, etc etc etc) we would be referring to the interests of the very large and very wealthy energy companies who seek to influence policy so that it aligns with their perceived interests. We saw a number of them in front of a Senate panel two months or so ago where, you'll recall, they lied regarding attendance at Cheney's energy meetings (which he refuses to be honest and transparent about).
So, that's what the term would have as referent. Now, before we go further, would you like me to explain anything else, say the meaning of "sky" or "family"?
blatham wrote:Now, the really interesting question that arises is (given that these christian bodies Thomas' link references represent a traditional christian understanding of mans' responsibility and stewardship of the environment and of god's creatures) just how did such a large portion of the evangelical community land in the pockets of business interests?
They didn't have to land there. The symbiosis between American Christianity and business is at least as old as Benjamin Franklin. Max Weber has written a book about the subject that might interest you.
blatham wrote:What exactly are you contesting or suggesting here, george? That the term "business interests" is without meaning?
In the context of this discussion (as opposed to, say another context such as the influence of pharmaceutical companies on government policy, or the influence of the tobacco industry, or the influence of the big auto companies on, say, seat belt legislation or emissions standards, etc etc etc) we would be referring to the interests of the very large and very wealthy energy companies who seek to influence policy so that it aligns with their perceived interests. We saw a number of them in front of a Senate panel two months or so ago where, you'll recall, they lied regarding attendance at Cheney's energy meetings (which he refuses to be honest and transparent about).
Are the interests of such large companies necessarily bad? You seem to imply they are. In fact these executives represent large numbers of stockholders whose property rights are protected by a fundamental principle of our law. I'm not suggesting they necessarily trump other rights, but rather that the 'evil implications' you are casting about are mostly nonsense.
georgeob said
Quote:Are the interests of such large companies necessarily bad? You seem to imply they are. In fact these executives represent large numbers of stockholders whose property rights are protected by a fundamental principle of our law. I'm not suggesting they necessarily trump other rights, but rather that the 'evil implications' you are casting about are mostly nonsense.
Let's reiterate.
We see a growing division in the evangelical community regarding acceptance/rejection of the evidence for global warming and thus regarding how we ought to respond. So the question arises...why the divergence of opinion?
We know from the article linked above (
and other coverage available) that the key players
opposing this new initiative are deeply imbedded in the modern Republican party (Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Oral Roberts' son) who have regular contact with Karl Rove's office, Grover Norquist's crowd, etc.
None of these people are terribly scientifically literate and are, often, deeply anti-science...
Quote: Sally Bingham, an Episcopal priest who is the environmental minister at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, is not surprised that evangelicals have not yet come to a consensus on global warming. Bingham, who runs a religious effort on global warming in 17 states called the Regeneration Project, says that evangelical children are taught not to trust scientists as soon as they enter Sunday school, starting with resisting the theory of evolution: "Why would evangelicals believe what the scientific community is saying now about global warming when they were raised as children to be suspicious of science?"
It is fair to ask whether Dobson et al continue to maintain their position out of educated opinion or out of party solidarity. Whether or not you agree, george, the first option there is not compelling but the second is.
Further, and again whether you agree or not, that solidarity includes a strong voice from the business sector evident in any manner of examples and instances, certainly including the energy industry.
To speak to your sentence above...no, it is not necessarily so that the influence of the business sector (or some part of it) will be negative. Neither is it necessarily so that will be positive. But it will be self-interested. Such self-interest will not always work to the advantage of the overall community (eg tobacco).
And further examles (there are many now) of the denigration of scientific findings for short term political ends, a serious problem with this administration...
Quote:IT IS A RARE thing for the biography of a 24-year-old NASA spokesman to attract the attention of the national media. But that is what happened this week when George C. Deutsch tendered his resignation. Mr. Deutsch had, it emerged, lied about his (nonexistent) undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University. Far more important, several New York Times articles over the past week or so have exposed Mr. Deutsch as one of several White House-appointed public affairs officers at the agency who tried to prevent senior NASA career scientists from speaking and writing freely, especially when their views on the realities of climate change differed from those of the White House.
Mr. Deutsch prevented reporters from interviewing James E. Hansen, the leading climate scientist at NASA, telling colleagues he was doing so because his job was to "make the president look good." Mr. Deutsch also instructed another NASA scientist to add the word "theory" after every written mention of the Big Bang, on the grounds that the accepted scientific explanation of the origins of the universe "is an opinion" and that NASA should not discount the possibility of "intelligent design by a creator."
The spectacle of a young political appointee with no college degree exerting crude political control over senior government scientists and civil servants with many decades of experience is deeply disturbing. More disturbing is the fact that Mr. Deutsch's attempts to manipulate science and scientists, although unusually blatant, were not unique. Just before Christmas, the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued "talking points" to local environmental agencies. These suggestions were intended to help their spokesmen play down an Associated Press story that -- using the EPA's own data -- showed that impoverished neighborhoods had higher levels of air pollution.
At the Food and Drug Administration, the director of the Office of Women's Health recently resigned because she believed that the administration was twisting science to stall approval of over-the-counter emergency contraception. Off the record -- because they fear losing their jobs -- some scientists at the Department of Health and Human Services say that Bush administration public affairs officers screen their appearances and utterances more carefully than anyone ever did. Scientists at places such as the Agriculture Department, not a part of the government known for its publicity hounds, have made the same claim.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020801991.html
And, a further example regarding the vectoring of business interests into governance... as if any further examples were needed.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-food9feb09,0,3831305.story?coll=la-home-nation
Golly goodness...pharmaceutical companies influencing legislation (First and Hassert apparently do the midnight sneaky to help)...
link
Hmmm
It's so heartening to finally have leaders who don't equivocate.
I'm sure you all agree.
Some gloat-worthy news for the Democrats! A new, pithy agenda (and I assume a new slogan to go with it)! Whew!! I don't know about y'all, but surely anything will be better than what we've had to listen to for the past 5 or so years (how bad things are under Bush! - never, "listen, this is what's wrong and this is how we're going to fix it!". I, for one, am very much looking forward to "pithy"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dems in search of pithy agenda
Laura to Hill: Grow some decency, eh?
"Pressed on what sport she would compete in, Mrs. Bush said skiing."
Please take note, as this is sure to be important information for the Democrat Gloat Thread.
A pithy agenda!
That should take care of everything!
Good thinking!!
Unlike you guys, we're not going to pitch a childish fit if you want to come hang out in the thread. There's plenty of room for everyone here, including insults.
Here's a great post by Glen Greenwald about the Cult of Personality which has trapped the Republican party:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/do-bush-followers-have-political.html
Greenwald examines the fact that many of Bush's policies aren't Conservative in the least; and his followers just couldn't care less, because they aren't conservatives at heart.
Cycloptichorn
