What's up with Lobbyists?

OK, I’m wondering why – with all the scandals coming out of Washington related to politicians who obviously only want government jobs for the perqs – why the voters can’t pass referendums that stipulate that any local politician who takes lobbyist money can’t be on a ballot? Why can’t we push for at least ethical local representation? And if that works, why can’t we – the people (remember us?) push for referendums that make it illegal for the kind of pandering and vote-buying that remains so wildly prevalent. Why can’t we remove the NRA, AARP, and so many others, from their positions of purchased influence? Why can’t we demand that these organizations report the actual percentage of their expenditures that go to lobbying? Why can’t we demand to see what they are lobbying for, and what affect the results will have on us – those taxpayers who are giving the money to the lobbyists so they can bribe the politicians? Why don’t we just call lobbying what it really is – bribery?

Cheers Amanda!

Just wanted to blow a horn for my gardening friend, Amanda Thomsen, who is the new blogger for Horticulture magazine, with her witty and wonderful blog Kiss My Aster. If you've not read it, well...you really need to catch up on your online gardening!

Stupid Git

"Republicans wasted no time in criticizing Kennedy as unqualified for the job and unfamiliar with the state.

"If anything, it makes me more determined to run," said Rep. Peter King, a Long Island Republican who has already expressed his interest in the seat."

So - all of her experience with non-profits, her degrees, and her other experience (president of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation and a member of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award Committee; also a director of the Commission on Presidential Debates; a director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; honorary chairwoman of the American Ballet Theatre; and vice chairwoman of New York City's Fund for Public Schools) DON'T MATTER?

The fact that Rep. King already has an elected office makes him MORE qualified? Well heck then, if being elected to office is all that's required, why don't they just reach out and get Blago?

Layoffs and Training Departments

Sorry gang, as someone who spent many years in Training Departments, I gotta tell you that they really don't mean anything. Companies have them for two primary reasons, with the first being a recruiting tool. No company that wants to get good workers will NOT have a training department of some kind, as no one would want to go to work for a company that isn't interested in increasing the abilities of their employees. This fallacy is fairly obvious when you look at how a majority of courses are used, or rather not used, by companies. Many people attend, but how many have supervisors or managers back on the job who have a clue as to what that person just learned, or is anywhere near ready to take advantage of those new skills? Sorry - there's no transition from classroom to office in most instances. (Just ask how many companies run an ROI on their training....)

The second reason is it's a good place to begin letting people go to trim your salary expenses. Training is very easy to outsource, and even easier to replace with the new elearning rapture that companies are finding. The problem with elearning is the same as with the traditional live classroom experience - very little or no support from immediate supervisors when back on the job.

The exception to the rule of no support? Easy, that's when the skills being taught are things that are either required by law, or are static skills like statistical analysis - but nothing related to interpersonal skills. The reason why interpersonal skills aren't supported back on the job? Oh come on - do you really need for me to answer that one?

HOLLYwood!
la-la-land....So Jennifer Aniston wants her life to be more private, and uses the opportunity of appearing nearly naked on a magazine cover to make that wish public knowledge. Excuse me? She can’t carry a movie and apparently can’t find a TV show that’s suitable for her self-image. What a pathetic run-up to a melt-down of a career. Please, can’t we just move on and worry about something more pertinent, like why Paris Hilton really DIDN’T run for president?

POLITICS
Also, I find it very entertaining how Rove and other Republicans have yet to leave the campaign trail – oh, wait, they NEVER leave the campaign trail, unless it's to start whitewashing their record over the past 8 years so they can win elections in 2010. (They'll work for their buddies on Wall Street and Corp. America in the meantime, why not, since they have all that money the Republicans like to funnel to Big Business?) For them the entire issue is about being in power, not about actually performing the public duty of the offices for which they strive with such diligent negativity and fear mongering.

Now there’s a columnist (the right-winger that the San Francisco Chronicle runs so they can say they’re balanced – when it’s obvious she isn’t) who is wondering why, after previous columns condemning anything Obama might even be thinking of because he's a liberal in her view, why-oh-why isn’t Obama stepping up and doing something about the economic crisis NOW (mid December). Shouldn’t someone remind Ms. Nasty Loser that her hero is still in office, and doing his very best imitation of President Buchanan? Namely, do nothing so the situation dissolves so badly that the next administration will be nearly helpless – and therefore to blame. At least, as others have noted, we don’t have to wait 3 years for the next administration to step in and try to save our Empire, all the while trying to trick the next administration into doing things that will handicap them in the future. (How come Hoover was smart enough at the end of his administration to try to entrap FDR, but not smart enough to try to do anything about the economy? Oh, wait – that’s right – he didn’t think anything needed to be done – he was convinced it would be good for the country to go through what it was going through, and the free market would salvage the remainder.)

Gotta wonder just how much similarity there is between the Empire of the U.S in the 21st century, and the Spanish Empire of the 17th century. Spain was the most powerful and wealthy superpower in Europe, all because of the gold they were raping out of the Americas. Once that pipeline dried up Spain declined to regular-country status (it didn't help that they had an inbred idiot as their last Hapsburg King). And now the U.S. Empire is crumbling, because the gold we were raping out of our homes and credit cards has dried up. Fortunately next year we won't have an idiot taking over the reigns of power.