Political accountability

One outcome, I believe, of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is how it re-arranged the notion of democracy here in the West. People started talking about the powers Prime Ministers and Presidents had to wage war, legal or not, despite unprecedented protests by the citizenry of many of the countries involved with the invasion.
Democracy as we currently practice it is not a writ in stone, concrete thing, unchanging and stagnant. As human society evolves, so too will democracy. Iraq has helped speed up the process and a good thing too. As apalled as we all are at the carnage that has been unleashed on that unfortunate country, we can take some comfort in the fact that the invading countries have themselves undergone some fundamental changes. An important debate is taking place in the U.K. about giving Parliament a say in taking the country to war.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,1673996,00.html

The Yes-men

Usually it is the yes men and invariably they are men, who get attacked for being what they are naturally.........which is.........yes-men/women. They can't help it. Thats what they are like. They follow. They position themselves where they can be of the greatest service to someone, anyone who'll just tell them what to do!! Shouldn't they have a right to cushy jobs?
Should we attack the yes-men or should we attack the system that creates and perpetuates this practice of using yesmen?

Whats wrong with a lil' bit of nepotism?

Whats wrong with a lil' bit of nepotism? Probably nothing in the greater scheme of things.
Very likely goes on all the time.
A lot of family businesses may even owe their successes to a bit of "keep it in the family" kinda nepotism.
May even work in many cases, where it does not impede or injure others.

So! When exactly can we say that nepotism or any of its henchmen such as cronyism and favouritism becomes a problem?

First of all, it usually works in small Mom and Pop organizations, where problems are more readily apparent, than in larger organizations where there are many more variables.

It becomes a problem when the organization itself starts becoming dysfunctional and when others are trampled, over-looked or impeded in their own careers. It becomes a problem when it becomes the nepotism of the arrogant. Thats when nepotism becomes truly lethal, as in the case of New Orleans where real live, tax paying citizens have been, killed, injured, or worse, left living at the mercy of an Administration that, compounding the arrogance of appointing a one-time horse trainer to head up a national disaster relief/preparedness agency, continues to give disaster-relief tax dollars to its most favourite corporations to administer. This ensures that profit comes first and that relief is fitted in there somewhere, but thats another story for "accountabilitynow" for another time.

Nepotism thus takes on different meanings. Nepotism for survival in a small/family organization may be workable even desirable.

The nepotism of arrogance, the just because one can attitude, becomes a whole different kind of monster. A deadly monster in larger organizations, because arrogance invariably and demonstrably appoints mediocrity.

Bears repeating. Arrogance appoints mediocrity. Mediocrity breeds mediocrity.

Mediocrity always leads to corruption. Mediocrity inevitably leads to the demise of excellence, because mediocrity is the enemy of excellence. So! You end up with mediocre members who, in order to keep their own positions as cushy as can possibly be, recommend other mediocrities with the same goal and thus banishes the hard/visionary/inspired/creative work that excellence brings to the table. The kind of work that helps an organization stay competitive with the other sharks out there.

An organization that is filled with the spawn of nepotism is an unstable organization. It is riven with internal factions, each striving for dominance. Depending on the rank of ones relatives, levels of factions begin to form. Factions within factions. It is the perfect breeding ground for a possible dictator within the organization, as those appointed out of arrogance aren't usually the sharpest knives in the drawer. Their own survival will always, always, take precedence over the survival or the future health of the organization.

Mediocrity costs an organization more in real dollars as well, because as anyone knows it just simply takes a lot more mediocre people to do the job of a few talented ones. Mistakes and mediocrity also go hand in hand. A lot of resources that also cost real dollars get wasted like this.
Mediocrity fills an organizations rivals with talent. How? Remember that mediocrity always banishes excellence. That excellence sometimes ends up with a competitor, usually at much higher compensation. Thats because loyalty never needs to be highly compensated.
All this leads to sub-standard service, product, profits and eventually the demise of the organization itself.
They'll probably blame it all on the departure of the talent from their organization, because in the end.......Mediocrity always blames the excellent for the predictable result of mediocrity.

Yes men, political hacks and cronies

US response to the victims of hurricane Katrina was plagued by the incompetence of the yes-man Bush had put in charge of the agency responsible for disaster relief.
Now, any halfwit will tell you that the presence of cronies, pals, yesmen and family members at the highest levels, or at the bureaucrat level, only leads to disaster.
Heres the million dollar question!!
Who is to blame?
Who will be accountable?
Is it enough for the yesman to merely resign after so many lives were needlessly lost, or for the guy who put this incompetent fool in charge, to theatrically proclaim that he takes responsibility?
I say not!! Both the yes man and his master must bear responsibility.
Lets put this system of bankrupting solid organizations via the cancers of cronyism, nepotism and favouritism, out of business once and for all.
Everybody has the duty and the right to challenge the directions and the hiring decisions of their own organizations. If any are found to fit the pattern, where cronies or yesmen are prevalent, then these must be purged from positions they obtained via their ass-kissing ways or their relations to those in power.

Political accountability

The British are currently undergoing a soul searching and are demanding accountability from the Blairistas.
Unlike his predecessor, the late and much missed Robin Cook, who resigned from cabinet in protest against the illegal and brutal invasion of Iraq, the current Foreign Secretary Jack Straw still vociferously defends the actions of the blairistas and claims the London bombings have nothing to do with the atrocities being committed daily against the Iraqi people.
Have the citizens of Blairistan been served properly by having a yes-man like Straw blindly follow his master into Iraq, despite his alleged reported misgivings as stated by the now famous Downing Street memos?
Is simple removal from office sufficient punishment enough for the death and destruction wreaked on an innocent public in Iraq?

Another CEO bites the dust

Bernard Ebbers, the CEO of WorldCom has just been sentenced to 25 years in prison for his role in the collapse of his company. It is said to be the largest accounting fraud in US corporate history.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar
/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1121291413255&call
_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

Highway 407 rip-off

Last week there was another court ruling that upheld the original bad contract the Conservatives signed when they privatized Highway 407 and once again proved that they are very bad when it comes to managing economic portfolios. Good for businesses-Bad for consumers.
The following is an editorial in the Toronto Star on the subject;
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_
Type1&c=Article&cid=1105614487708&call_pageid=
968256290204&col=968350116795

The editorial asks the question whether the case should be pursued, whether it is in the taxpayers interest.
I say yes and more. There are some other strategies that can be employed in this horrendous give-away of taxpayers' hard earned money.
The Conservative Party should be sued along with key cabinet ministers. This makes accountability a key factor in the process and makes political parties be accountable for the policies they push onto the taxpayers. It will also make cabinet ministers take the publics interests into account when making decisions.
It has the added advantage of securing more press coverage of an issue that should be of greater concern to the voting public.
The Government can also look at eliminating tax credits for those who claim travel as a tax deductible expense, thus forcing people who use the highway to pay for it's use out of their own pockets. This should put a serious dent in the number of users, affect the profitability of the highway and force the owners to re-open the contract and sign a better deal with the taxpayers of the province.
This giveaway of a key taxpayer owned asset should not be allowed to fade from memory.