Digby stays on top of things:
What mindless twit came upp with this gem:?
“The morning-after pill is a pedophile’s best friend,” Wendy Wright, senior policy director for Concerned Women of America, a public policy organization, said in a statement after learning of Galson’s decision. “Morning-after pill proponents treat women like sex machines.”
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114600008253976488
As many people realize, Public Radio fund drives break down the camnpaign into hourly or short-term goals. Better for morale to try a $1000 goal for the hour than the $200,000 goal of the campaign.
Anyway, our local station is into the spring fundraiser and I tuned into the drive at the half-hour mark. The spritely, energetic fundraiser was anouncing that their goal for the hour was 30 callers to contribute. As she said, “a half-hour left and only 27 callers to go!”
I don’t know that I am enough of an optimist to do this.
11 Companies Rewarding Failure: Financial News – Yahoo! Finance
It is interesting to see these compensation articles. I think that too much of an executive’s reward structure is based on short-term goals and the executive has often disappeared when the company collapses in the long-term (5-years or more.)
Why not develop a long term incentive system along the line that sets up long-term and short-term goals for an exec, with commensurate rewards based on whatever metrics the board wants to use. But, the exec can not collect the short-term rewards unless the long-term goals are met.
So, if an exec gets a bonus for raising the stock price 20% one year, and has a 5-year goal of doubling customers, the exec doesn’t collect the 1 year bonus for at least 5 years and then only if the customer base has doubled.
There are a fair number of variation on this theme; the main point is to hold an exec’s feet to the fire to ensure the long-term success of a company and not to allow an exec to gut a company to promote short term success. (I wonder what would have happened to the dot-com bubble if no one got any rewards until the long-term goals were realized?)
Continue reading 11 Companies Rewarding Failure: Financial News – Yahoo! Finance
This article in the NY Times talks about how the headline writers are having to adjust their headlining skills to work with very literally minded bots.
Gone will be the days of Sticks Nix Hick Pix or Ford to City: Drop Dead. Of course, I have no idea what those mean. Headless Body in Topless Bar is pretty self-explanatory.
Continue reading What Have Headlines Become?
Welcome to Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Looks like they found their way online…
Microsoft’s gates mocks MIT’s $100 laptop project – Mar. 16, 2006
I note that the CNN picture is in color, even thought Laptop is supposed to have a B/W screen.
I heard something of the radio this morning that got me thinking.
When you are elected to public office, it is not only your own personal integrity that is held up to the light. It is the integrity of your staff. The people YOU have selected to manage your office, to write up the laws and amendments that are submitted in your name, to interface with special interest groups, to deal with constituents, to make your public life easier. These staffers who feed at the the public trough. It’s sort of like the chain of command in the military, the ones at the top are responsible for what the underlings do, even if they didn’t countenance the actions.
Conrad Burns contention that Abramoff didn’t influence him, personally, is irrelevant. Abramoff clearly influenced someone on Burns’ staff. Earmarks were legislated that were of no possible benefite to Burns’ state, and of no apparent benefit to the United States, but were of benefit to Abramoff clients. And they were earmarked in Burns’ name.
The Forrest Gump, or GWB, defense is not a valid defense for a public official. It is not unfair for opponents to point out that it happened on your watch, whether you were awake or not. The fact that you are as dumb as a stump and that the staff around you betrayed you and let these undue influences corrupt your office is not a valid defense. It is, actually, a very good reason not to re-elect someone to public office.
Personal aside:
People, just on general principle don’t re-elect an incumbant. For Party Stalwarts, this means ousting the incumbant in the primaries. (Can’t very well ask a died-in-wool-Republican to vote Democrat or vice-versa, now, can we? Although I would remind folks that are ARE more than two political parites in most places.)