We're not talking about your secretary, Doug. These are the people that
run the organizations, both financially and functionally.


You mean putting little circles & arrows on the calendar, sweeping the
office, balancing the checkbook, calling the roofing guy.


Maxprop wrote:
Not even close. They are executive directors, people who plan and execute
the agendas of the organizations.

Depends very much on the organization

They are very well compensated for their
expertise and performance.


And (in most cases I know about) their political connections.




How naive you are.

Yeah sure.

That's not calling names, is it? Of course not, but it
doesn't really prove much.


... If I referred to the executive director of our state
professional organization as "an office employee," he'd laugh.


If he's setting the basic policy & long-term agenda of the
organization, then he should laugh... and hand you a jar of
Vaseline.




Sure. The doctors consult their executive directors and ask them for
policy-making direction and guidance.

You don't work with doctors very much, do you?

.... Doctors, as a rule, are great
clinicians but lousy policy makers and planners.

But they are the ones who know what a doctor's professional
concerns & issues are.



... The organization officers consult them for guidance, not vice versa.


That's exactly backwards from the way it should be, and is backwards from
every such organization *I* have experience with.


It's reality, like it or not.

Actually, it isn't.

Your say-so doesn't mean much, and you have done very little
(other than call names) to prove your point.

... Your experience may not have been as close to
the action as you might wish to believe.


Yeah maybe not. When I, along with a group of colleagues,
say to each other "we should have this-or-that" and it
starts happening, that doesn't mean much does it.





My secretary isn't either. But he doesn't make engineering decisions.


Yeah, but does he have nice legs? Wait--don't answer that. I don't want to
know.


Yes you do.


When did we begin talking about my company??? We were discussing
professional organizations, and some not-so-professional, like the AARP.


You just hate-hate-hate the AARP because they didn't roll
over for Bush/Cheney's looting of Social Security, the way
they did for every other Bush/Cheney plan.

And we began talking about your company because it is a
parallel situation to the organizations under discussion...
you claim they are run by & for the professional managers,
but somehow *you* get a different deal.


Nice attempt at obfuscation, but no cigar.

I don't want a cigar, thanks.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

.... Doctors, as a rule, are great clinicians but lousy policy makers and
planners.

But they are the ones who know what a doctor's professional concerns &
issues are.

True, but the mechanics of legislative interaction, agenda planning, and the
business surrounding such issues is best left to the pros whose expertise
affords them the greatest chance for success: the executive directors.

Your say-so doesn't mean much, and you have done very little (other than
call names) to prove your point.

Becoming a little sensitive, Doug? Odd, coming from the insensitive,
name-calling jerk you've been in virtually every Usenet conversation we've
had heretofore.


You just hate-hate-hate the AARP because they didn't roll over for
Bush/Cheney's looting of Social Security, the way they did for every other
Bush/Cheney plan.

Not even close. They've been prejudicial toward my profession for years.
They've promoted a secular-progressive agenda, but have attempted to pass
themselves off as a non-partisan organization benefitting the elderly. And
take a look at their balance sheet--it doesn't exactly look like a
non-profit organization.

Max

But they are the ones who know what a doctor's professional concerns &
issues are.


Maxprop wrote:
True, but the mechanics of legislative interaction, agenda planning, and the
business surrounding such issues is best left to the pros whose expertise
affords them the greatest chance for success: the executive directors.


I think you're confused between paper-pushing and deciding
what gets written on the paper. In any event, I agree with
your above statement but it doesn't do a thing to prove (or
even indicate slightly) that the office help are the people
setting the agenda and formulating policy.





Your say-so doesn't mean much, and you have done very little (other than
call names) to prove your point.


Becoming a little sensitive, Doug?

Not at all. Just making a point.



You just hate-hate-hate the AARP because they didn't roll over for
Bush/Cheney's looting of Social Security, the way they did for every other
Bush/Cheney plan.


Not even close. They've been prejudicial toward my profession for years.
They've promoted a secular-progressive agenda, but have attempted to pass
themselves off as a non-partisan organization benefitting the elderly.

Non-partisan? Shucks in the last election they were panting
& drooling for President Bush. Maybe they weren't panting
hard enough IYHO?

I think it's kind of funny, all the groups that have helped
Bush eventually get savaged by Karl Rove. There's a lesson
here somewhere.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

Maxprop wrote:

Not even close. They've been prejudicial toward my profession for years.
They've promoted a secular-progressive agenda, but have attempted to pass
themselves off as a non-partisan organization benefitting the elderly.

Non-partisan? Shucks in the last election they were panting & drooling for
President Bush.

My point exactly. Non-partisan means just that.

I think it's kind of funny, all the groups that have helped Bush
eventually get savaged by Karl Rove. There's a lesson here somewhere.

It's a matter of which happened first--Rove never "savaged" anyone who
didn't deserve it in his opinion. Not likely that he applied his political
wrath against a supporter. My guess is that those whom he maligned had
turned on the President. Let's face it--it's his job. Whatever gave you
the impression that politics is a nice, pretty business?

Max

I think it's kind of funny, all the groups that have helped Bush
eventually get savaged by Karl Rove. There's a lesson here somewhere.


Maxprop wrote:
It's a matter of which happened first--Rove never "savaged" anyone who
didn't deserve it in his opinion.

Well, sure. His opinion is based on what is most likely to
help President Bush in the polls during the current news cycle.

... Not likely that he applied his political
wrath against a supporter.

Really? Guess again.

... My guess is that those whom he maligned had
turned on the President.

By his definition, failing to support the looting of Social
Security enthusiastically enough. Plus they grumbled a
little bit about the Pharmeceutical Bail-Out Bill, otherwise
known as Medicare Reform.



.... Whatever gave you
the impression that politics is a nice, pretty business?


My impression is that leadership should be leadership, not
pandering after poll numbers. Wasn't that one of the
criticisms of Clinton? That, and not committing sufficient
military force to accomplish the U.S. goals? Hmmm, where
have we seen this story before....


DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .

My impression is that leadership should be leadership, not pandering after
poll numbers. Wasn't that one of the criticisms of Clinton?

Yup.

That, and not committing sufficient military force to accomplish the U.S.
goals? Hmmm, where have we seen this story before....

Nobody's perfect. Your mistake is assuming I support Bush and his
administration. For the record (for the umpteenth time) I'm no fan of GWB
or his policies. He's rear-ended his constituency, bankrupted the
government, and failed to secure our southern border. And that's the tip of
the iceberg, IMHO. Of course no Democrat will do any better. To expect any
president to actually make and execute policies which benefit the populace
is naive. The Washington Game is one of money and favors.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
Nobody's perfect.

True

.... Your mistake is assuming I support Bush and his
administration.

Not at all. You've stated that you despise him. I believe
you, but I don't agree with you.


.... For the record (for the umpteenth time) I'm no fan of GWB
or his policies. He's rear-ended his constituency, bankrupted the
government, and failed to secure our southern border. And that's the tip of
the iceberg, IMHO.

Sure. He did all this before the 2004 election, and you
vigorously supported him them. So who made the mistake?


... Of course no Democrat will do any better.

So, you're just bitterly anti-Democrat? At least that's a
simple policy, easy to explain.


... To expect any
president to actually make and execute policies which benefit the populace
is naive. The Washington Game is one of money and favors.


In that case, the fools are the people who continue to vote
for it.

DSK