| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
It's good news week!
Yep, the only scientific study, overseen by John Hopkins Univ, but Bush
claimed it's wrong. Well, ok. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com OzOne wrote in message ... It's good news week! http://www.optusnet.com.au/news/stor...al/1762691.inp Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
It's good news week!
You can tell how accurate it was by the HUGE sample base.
"Capt. JG" wrote Yep, the only scientific study, overseen by John Hopkins Univ, but Bush claimed it's wrong. Well, ok. OzOne wrote in message ... It's good news week! http://www.optusnet.com.au/news/stor...al/1762691.inp Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
It's good news week!
And the matching death certificates!
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Bart" .@. wrote in message ... You can tell how accurate it was by the HUGE sample base. "Capt. JG" wrote Yep, the only scientific study, overseen by John Hopkins Univ, but Bush claimed it's wrong. Well, ok. OzOne wrote in message ... It's good news week! http://www.optusnet.com.au/news/stor...al/1762691.inp Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
It's good news week!
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:11:01 -0500, Dave wrote:
Never trust anything called a "study." Nine times out of ten it's nothing more than a propaganda piece dressed up in black tie. And Bush's number, 30,000? |
It's good news week!
Yeah, I guess the Lancet and John's Hopkins researchers must be wrong and
Bush is right. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:02:54 -0400, "Bart" .@. said: "Capt. JG" wrote Yep, the only scientific study, overseen by John Hopkins Univ, but Bush claimed it's wrong. Well, ok. Never trust anything called a "study." Nine times out of ten it's nothing more than a propaganda piece dressed up in black tie. |
It's good news week!
Even if you're watch is broken, you're right twice a day.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "OzOne" wrote in message ... On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:43:02 -0700, "Capt. JG" scribbled thusly: Yeah, I guess the Lancet and John's Hopkins researchers must be wrong and Bush is right. Isn't he always? Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
It's good news week!
Perhaps you should open your mind just a tiny bit. You'd be amazed what
you'll find. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:43:02 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: Yeah, I guess the Lancet and John's Hopkins researchers must be wrong and Bush is right. I am rather surprised that either would lend its name to such an effort. Looks like a case of defining integrity down. |
It's good news week!
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:00:01 -0500, Dave wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:49:14 -0000, "thunder" said: And Bush's number, 30,000? Likely closer than anything contained in something called a "study." Actually, not likely. As Gen. Franks said, "We don't do body counts." So Bush's number did not come from within the government. It most likely came from the Iraqi Body Count website, which now has civilian deaths at @45,000. The IBC site uses a very conservative methodology, and only counts *civilian* deaths. Total deaths are obviously much higher. It is quite possible, this study is accurate, but more important than the numbers is the trend, and the trend is more deaths, not less. Can you say Civil War? http://www.iraqbodycount.org/background.php#methods http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121700017.html |
It's good news week!
Dave wrote:
Given that publications of the once-respected ABA have become shills for a left-wing cheering section, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see the doctors following. Don't you ever get tired of accusing everybody who doesn't think Bush & Cheney are utterly perfect is a far left-wing whacko? The AARP, doctors, who's next? DSK |
It's good news week!
It's a conspiracy right?
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:35:10 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: Perhaps you should open your mind just a tiny bit. You'd be amazed what you'll find. Given that publications of the once-respected ABA have become shills for a left-wing cheering section, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see the doctors following. |
It's good news week!
"DSK" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: Given that publications of the once-respected ABA have become shills for a left-wing cheering section, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see the doctors following. Don't you ever get tired of accusing everybody who doesn't think Bush & Cheney are utterly perfect is a far left-wing whacko? The AARP, doctors, who's next? I don't think Bush and Cheney are utterly perfect. O' my God--I'm a liberal !!! Max |
It's good news week!
shhhh...
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "DSK" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: Given that publications of the once-respected ABA have become shills for a left-wing cheering section, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see the doctors following. Don't you ever get tired of accusing everybody who doesn't think Bush & Cheney are utterly perfect is a far left-wing whacko? The AARP, doctors, who's next? I don't think Bush and Cheney are utterly perfect. O' my God--I'm a liberal !!! Max |
It's good news week!
Don't you ever get tired of accusing everybody who doesn't think Bush &
Cheney are utterly perfect is a far left-wing whacko? Maxprop wrote: I don't think Bush and Cheney are utterly perfect. O' my God--I'm a liberal !!! Yeah, but you're not a cool rural Southern in-the-closet-gun-owning liberal like me. DSK |
It's good news week!
It's McManara all over again, only this time with the liberals. They are
using any and all deaths as propaganda against Bush. Apply the same method against Hitler in WWII. It took tens of millions of lives across the globe to stop the genocidal slaughter of only 6 million in the death camps. In the end, more people lived under totalitarian regimes than in the beginning. The only conclusion then is that WWII was an immoral and unjustifiable war. FDR is a war criminal. It's the old tired tactic of liberals using numbers and disregarding the causation and results of those numbers to support their "morality". A very hollow argument. |
It's good news week!
Dave wrote:
Note that the common thread that unites the ABA, the AMA and the AARP is that these supposed membership "associations" are in practice run by professional association managers, who use the dues they collect to further their own agendas. Just like unions. Actually the AMA is run by doctors and the AARP is run by retired people. Do they have an agenda? Probably so, everybody else seems to.... BTW, did you know that there is also an Association of Associations? I find that one really funny. Love it... I'm going to petition them to give me an individual membership!! DSK |
It's good news week!
Actually the AMA is run by doctors and the AARP is run by
retired people. Dave wrote: And the tooth fairy comes to replace a kid's tooth under the pillow with money. So, having MD after the name just means the guy likes the sound of it, right? A number of years ago, I represented an association manager. She ran I don't know how many associations, most of them created by her, made good money at it, and had a great kitty, funded by dues, to push what she wanted in a whole variety of newsletters of the various associations. It was an enlightening experience. And it doesn't apply across the board to every single association. DSK |
It's good news week!
"DSK" wrote in message .. . Actually the AMA is run by doctors and the AARP is run by retired people. Dave wrote: And the tooth fairy comes to replace a kid's tooth under the pillow with money. So, having MD after the name just means the guy likes the sound of it, right? A number of years ago, I represented an association manager. She ran I don't know how many associations, most of them created by her, made good money at it, and had a great kitty, funded by dues, to push what she wanted in a whole variety of newsletters of the various associations. It was an enlightening experience. And it doesn't apply across the board to every single association. DSK Doug you should see what those companies that collect for charities pull in. 85% of the solicited gifts to the charity is not uncommon. |
It's good news week!
Gilligan wrote:
Doug you should see what those companies that collect for charities pull in. 85% of the solicited gifts to the charity is not uncommon. Yes, I know. Sometimes more. But that certainly does not mean that all charities are cynical, crooked shills. It just means that if you want your money to go towards a good cause, you have to be interested enough to find out which charities are actually *doing* something. Many charities spend large sums on lobbying. Is Congress a poverty case now? I don't give money to those charities, either (the Sierra Club for example. DSK |
It's good news week!
And it doesn't apply across the board to every single
association. Dave wrote: Doug, I get the ABA Journal, as well as its separate business lawyer's glossy magazine. So? ... I also get the AARP rags. Are you 55 or older? Both the President and the CEO of AARP are. Which is what I said. In fact, they are both grandparents. In other words, they are members of the group they represent. Your problem with that is.... what, exactly? .... True, I don't get a journal from the AMA, as I'm not an MD. I'm not either. It's a standard on public library shelves. Meanwhile, the president of the AMA (as well as all but two or three of their board and council members) are practicing (or formerly practicing) physicians. .... But it doesn't take a genius to make the connections. The obvious connection here is that you are used to seeing a Commie under every bed & bedpan, and now you just can't shake the habit. Wake up to the real world. Excuse me, but you are the one hurling accusations based on total fantasy. There are a lot of very good charity organizations, professional interest groups & associations, civic groups. There are also a few bad apples, as in every bunch. *That* is the real world, Dave. DSK |
It's good news week!
Dave wrote:
And I suppose you also believe they're in the business of providing services to their members. Of course. If they didn't, they wouldn't stay in business long. People don't seem to realize that today's dominant business model is the media model, and that model applies in spades to associations. It only applies if you have a twisted pseudo-MacLuhanesque view of the world. If you look at it one way, *all* businesses are serving the function of advertising. Then again, the advertising business provides a service that people pay for. Which viewpoint is correct? People don't seem to realize that today's dominant business model is to be a conduit for PAC money. This model applies in spades to the advertising business and can in many cases be applied to the non-profit business. Meanwhile, the fact remains that many charities & public interest groups *are* in fact run by people with the goal of serving a particular function that gov't & private business does not. Your cynical point that *some* are darkly twisted money-grubbers is true but your claim that *all* are is patently ridiculous. I'd say "Welcome to the real world, Dave" but I'm not sure you're here yet. DSK |
It's good news week!
Dave wrote:
.... While organizations that call themselves charities may themselves be agenda-drive, and so-called public interest groups are certainly agenda-driven, that's a whole 'nother story, and one I wasn't addressing. No. You were addressing the point that while they have supported some Bush/Cheney programs, they have opposed others, and therefor you say ugly things about them. DSK |
It's good news week!
Dave wrote:
????? You're losing it, Doug. Yeah, I guess I must be. Everything I said was correct. ... I think you better go back and review the thread. No need. I was actually there for it the first time. DSK |
It's good news week!
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "DSK" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: Given that publications of the once-respected ABA have become shills for a left-wing cheering section, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see the doctors following. Don't you ever get tired of accusing everybody who doesn't think Bush & Cheney are utterly perfect is a far left-wing whacko? The AARP, doctors, who's next? I don't think Bush and Cheney are utterly perfect. O' my God--I'm a liberal !!! shhhh... No ****. Max |
It's good news week!
"DSK" wrote in message .. . Don't you ever get tired of accusing everybody who doesn't think Bush & Cheney are utterly perfect is a far left-wing whacko? Maxprop wrote: I don't think Bush and Cheney are utterly perfect. O' my God--I'm a liberal !!! Yeah, but you're not a cool rural Southern in-the-closet-gun-owning liberal like me. I am, however, a vile Bible Belt, out-of-the-closet, gun-owning environmentalist/libertarian. That must be worth something. Max |
It's good news week!
"Gilligan" wrote in message . .. "DSK" wrote in message .. . Actually the AMA is run by doctors and the AARP is run by retired people. Dave wrote: And the tooth fairy comes to replace a kid's tooth under the pillow with money. So, having MD after the name just means the guy likes the sound of it, right? A number of years ago, I represented an association manager. She ran I don't know how many associations, most of them created by her, made good money at it, and had a great kitty, funded by dues, to push what she wanted in a whole variety of newsletters of the various associations. It was an enlightening experience. And it doesn't apply across the board to every single association. DSK Doug you should see what those companies that collect for charities pull in. 85% of the solicited gifts to the charity is not uncommon. It's practically the rule rather than the exception. The United Way has such a deplorable pass-through rate (that amount that makes it to the targeted end-users) as to be a joke. At times it's been less than 10%. Max |
It's good news week!
"DSK" wrote in message . .. And it doesn't apply across the board to every single association. Dave wrote: Doug, I get the ABA Journal, as well as its separate business lawyer's glossy magazine. So? ... I also get the AARP rags. Are you 55 or older? Both the President and the CEO of AARP are. Which is what I said. In fact, they are both grandparents. In other words, they are members of the group they represent. Your problem with that is.... what, exactly? Harry Belefonte was their man of the year in 2006. They should have printed that nice shot of him with Hugo Chavez in the AARP magazine. I'm not either. It's a standard on public library shelves. Meanwhile, the president of the AMA (as well as all but two or three of their board and council members) are practicing (or formerly practicing) physicians. Right. But the executives that run the AMA and my organization, the AOA, are not physicians or optometrists--they are pros that run professional organizations. Max |
It's good news week!
Maxprop wrote:
Harry Belefonte was their man of the year in 2006. They should have printed that nice shot of him with Hugo Chavez in the AARP magazine. They have to do something to "balance" their strong support of the Medicare Reform (ie Pharm Industry Bribe) program and their further support thru 3 elections. But hey, what have they done for President Bush lately? I'm not either. It's a standard on public library shelves. Meanwhile, the president of the AMA (as well as all but two or three of their board and council members) are practicing (or formerly practicing) physicians. Right. But the executives that run the AMA and my organization, the AOA, are not physicians or optometrists--they are pros that run professional organizations. Well, duh. My secretary isn't an engineer, either. So you agree with Dave that *all* charities and civic and professional interest organizations are crooked shills pushing an ultra-left-wing agenda? What a cheerful (and realistic) view of the world. DSK Max |
It's good news week!
Maxprop wrote:
It's practically the rule rather than the exception. The United Way has such a deplorable pass-through rate (that amount that makes it to the targeted end-users) as to be a joke. At times it's been less than 10%. Perhaps this just a US problem, http://www1.unitedway.ca/sites/Porta...orm.aspx?ID=20 , Or did you you just make up that 10% figure? Cheers Marty |
It's good news week!
So you agree with Dave that *all* charities and civic and
professional interest organizations are crooked shills pushing an ultra-left-wing agenda? What a cheerful (and realistic) view of the world. Dave wrote: A gross misstatement of my position. Well, please state your position clearly then. You certainly seemed to imply that because one charity that you worked for was crooked & driven by a personal agenda, that *all* are? You even claimed that this view was "the real world." First, Doug, as I said before I really wasn't addressing either charities or civic organizations. That's a red herring you dragged in. ??? Aren't AARP and the AMA civic organizations? Didn't you specifically speak of charities? Maybe that was a different thread? Please clarify. Second your word "all" ought to be a red flag to anyone with a bit of sense. In that case, please specify what percent of charities & civic organizations you think are all right. I know only the specifics of the ones that I am involved with & donate to. The Leukemia Society and the Nature Conservancy are the two main ones, and they are both fine organizations with much to be proud of. Regards Doug King |
It's good news week!
"Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "DSK" wrote in message .. . Don't you ever get tired of accusing everybody who doesn't think Bush & Cheney are utterly perfect is a far left-wing whacko? Maxprop wrote: I don't think Bush and Cheney are utterly perfect. O' my God--I'm a liberal !!! Yeah, but you're not a cool rural Southern in-the-closet-gun-owning liberal like me. I am, however, a vile Bible Belt, out-of-the-closet, gun-owning environmentalist/libertarian. That must be worth something. You are welcome to come visit anytime! |
It's good news week!
"Dave" wrote in message ... People don't seem to realize that today's dominant business model is the media model, and that model applies in spades to associations. Services, discounts, etc. provided to members are not the product being sold. They're the cost of goods--the bait to develop the real product, their membership roles. These organizations are in the business of selling advertisers and others access to their "members." To the extent that the professional managers' objectives correspond at all with those of the members it's purely coincidental. You got that right. |
It's good news week!
Dave wrote:
You really don't understand the difference between a charity and these associations, do you, Doug. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. Obviously you feel the need for an ad hominem attack at this point. ... I said was "A number of years ago, I represented an association manager. She ran I don't know how many associations, most of them created by her," Associations. Got that? Associations. Not charities. Sure. So why did you then go on to generalize that all such groups were crooked shills? ... Things like the Long Island Plumber's Association to make up an example. Nothing to do with charities. Different beasts entirely. The ABA, AMA, AARP, etc. etc. are _not_ charities. Agreed. But *you* brought up the AMA and the AARP specifically, and strongly insinuated (in not stated outright) that these too were crooked shills engaged in shoving a personal agenda down people's throats; and in a rather huffy way said that they were run by people who are not memebrs of the group(s) they represent; which is simply not true. Aren't AARP and the AMA civic organizations? Definitely not. They don't even pretend to be, though you and perhaps others seem to be badly confused on the point. They are organizations that purport to operate to further the interest of their members, not the public generally. Uh huh. So let's quibble over terminology. They represent a group of people and the leaders *are* members of that group themselves. ... But in fact they generate much of their revenue by providing vendors of various goods and services with access to their members Yep. It's called "advertising." The Republican Party does rather a lot of it these days. .... and further in substantial part the interests of their professional managers rather than the interests of their members. Got any proof of that? I already called you on who sets the policy. Does every law firm consist totally and solely of lawyers? Does no law firm (or any association of lawyers) ever ever hire a secretary to do the filing & telephoning, or an accountant to handle the money? The company I work for (sort of) has a lot of people who are not engineers, should it not be allowed to call itself an engineering company? Didn't you specifically speak of charities? Maybe that was a different thread? Please clarify. I said nothing about charities until you threw that red herring into the pot. Not a red herring at all. More ad hominem, eh Dave? Charities were specifically mentioned by others before I ever posted to this thread. DSK |
It's good news week!
"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message ... On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 03:41:30 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote: "Gilligan" wrote in message m... "DSK" wrote in message .. . Actually the AMA is run by doctors and the AARP is run by retired people. Dave wrote: And the tooth fairy comes to replace a kid's tooth under the pillow with money. So, having MD after the name just means the guy likes the sound of it, right? A number of years ago, I represented an association manager. She ran I don't know how many associations, most of them created by her, made good money at it, and had a great kitty, funded by dues, to push what she wanted in a whole variety of newsletters of the various associations. It was an enlightening experience. And it doesn't apply across the board to every single association. DSK Doug you should see what those companies that collect for charities pull in. 85% of the solicited gifts to the charity is not uncommon. It's practically the rule rather than the exception. The United Way has such a deplorable pass-through rate (that amount that makes it to the targeted end-users) as to be a joke. At times it's been less than 10%. Max The easiest way to avoid this is to give to LOCAL charities. That way you can be more involved in how your money gets used. Give 100K to United Way and it evaporates without ever tocuching the ground. Give the same to a local charity and watch what happens with it. I never give to the United Way, but my wife is literally forced to do so by her employer. Sucks. I've given to a variety of local charities, such as our Food Bank, which distributes foodstuffs to the impoverished. 100% of my expenditure gets to the end-user. By comparison the major charities are criminally inefficient. Max |
It's good news week!
"Martin Baxter" wrote in message ... Maxprop wrote: It's practically the rule rather than the exception. The United Way has such a deplorable pass-through rate (that amount that makes it to the targeted end-users) as to be a joke. At times it's been less than 10%. Perhaps this just a US problem, http://www1.unitedway.ca/sites/Porta...orm.aspx?ID=20 , Or did you you just make up that 10% figure? First: The Canadian rule that 80% must be spent on the target charities does not take into account the amount of money those individual charities extract before funding the endpoint users. Second: This is the USA, not Canada, and we have no such law that I'm aware of. Rather we have, at times, had Congressional oversight on charitable giving and expenses. This sometimes results in improvements in the pass-through rate, but when Congress' back is turned the old ways likely resume. Last figures I saw on the United Way is that about 70% of their monies are passed through to individual charities, but only about 70% of those monies are passed through to the endpoints. That makes the United Way ultimately about 50% efficient. I suspect your United Way is somewhat more efficient in the ultimate pass-through rate. Third: The 10% figure was accurate for the mid to late Seventies. Thanks to a Congressional investigation in the early 80s, the situation has improved. Fourth: Why would I make something like that up? Max |
It's good news week!
"DSK" wrote in message . .. Maxprop wrote: Right. But the executives that run the AMA and my organization, the AOA, are not physicians or optometrists--they are pros that run professional organizations. Well, duh. My secretary isn't an engineer, either. We're not talking about your secretary, Doug. These are the people that run the organizations, both financially and functionally. They do the legislative liason footwork, make the legislative contacts, plan the agendas of the organizations, and execute the decisions made by the organization officers. The organization officers consult them for guidance, not vice versa. They are not coffee making, skirt-swishing typists. So you agree with Dave that *all* charities and civic and professional interest organizations are crooked shills pushing an ultra-left-wing agenda? What a cheerful (and realistic) view of the world. I agree that you'll always see it that way. It's your secular progressive nature. Max |
It's good news week!
"DSK" wrote in message . .. So you agree with Dave that *all* charities and civic and professional interest organizations are crooked shills pushing an ultra-left-wing agenda? What a cheerful (and realistic) view of the world. Dave wrote: A gross misstatement of my position. Well, please state your position clearly then. You certainly seemed to imply that because one charity that you worked for was crooked & driven by a personal agenda, that *all* are? You even claimed that this view was "the real world." I didn't interpret his statements that way. But let's not worry about specifics when blatant generalities are so easy and convenient to make. Aren't AARP and the AMA civic organizations? No. I don't know what the AARP is, but at times it appears to be an under-the-radar, for-profit business with a strong political agenda. The AMA is a professional organization, founded for the purpose of further the agendas of physicians, also with strong political agendas. In that case, please specify what percent of charities & civic organizations you think are all right. Locals, some church-based, etc. I know only the specifics of the ones that I am involved with & donate to. The Leukemia Society and the Nature Conservancy are the two main ones, and they are both fine organizations with much to be proud of. LOL. The Nature Conservancy is hardly a charity. It is a private organization that buys and secures land to prevent its plunder. I have given them a lot of money over the past 20 years. I really don't know about the Leukemia Society--it may be a fine, legitimate charity, but I'd ask to see their pass-through rate before sending any more money. Max |
It's good news week!
"DSK" wrote in message . .. Dave wrote: You really don't understand the difference between a charity and these associations, do you, Doug. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. Obviously you feel the need for an ad hominem attack at this point. You obviously don't understand the meaning of "ad hominem attack" either. Dave is debating your points, not name-calling. Uh huh. So let's quibble over terminology. They represent a group of people and the leaders *are* members of that group themselves. And both organizations have leaders vested with strong political objectives. The political agendas of such organizations cannot be overlooked simply because they provide some publicly beneficial activities and services. ... But in fact they generate much of their revenue by providing vendors of various goods and services with access to their members Yep. It's called "advertising." The Republican Party does rather a lot of it these days. . . . and the Democratic Party doesn't????? You certainly wear some rather one-sided blinders, Doug. .... and further in substantial part the interests of their professional managers rather than the interests of their members. I disagree that the AMA does this, Dave. The paid managers of professional organizations are hired by the membership, and would be fired if they didn't absolutely represent the membership's interests to the letter. As for the AARP, I suspect what you say is true, at least that's been my observation. Does every law firm consist totally and solely of lawyers? Does no law firm (or any association of lawyers) ever ever hire a secretary to do the filing & telephoning, or an accountant to handle the money? The company I work for (sort of) has a lot of people who are not engineers, should it not be allowed to call itself an engineering company? Apples--oranges. Hardly the same thing. Not a red herring at all. More ad hominem, eh Dave? Not even close. Did he call you a left-wing wacko? THAT is an ad hominem, and that's my job now, thanks to you refusing to give up your ad hominems directed at me. I have to admit that it's easier this way, throwing sophomoric shots at each other. It doesn't take mental gymnastics to avoid a debate by name-calling in lieu thereof. Max |
It's good news week!
Right. But the executives that run the AMA and my organization, the AOA,
are not physicians or optometrists--they are pros that run professional organizations. Well, duh. My secretary isn't an engineer, either. Maxprop wrote: 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. ... They do the legislative liason footwork, make the legislative contacts, Sure plan the agendas Not if the organizations are headed by members of the group they represent. Doctors as officers of the AMA for example. *They* set the agenda, not the office employees. Ever heard of policy-making as opposed to manning the desk? and execute the decisions made by the organization officers. Sure. ... 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. For example, if your sailing club has a hired manager, does he decide who gets the big perpetual trophies? They are not coffee making, skirt-swishing typists. My secretary isn't either. But he doesn't make engineering decisions. One could say that your company is run by & for the office manager; after all he makes a lot of decisions right? But if he is setting basic policy then you are abdicating from your role. Some presidents & boards do, most don't (IMHO of course). Something about self-interest... DSK |
It's good news week!
"DSK" wrote in message . .. Right. But the executives that run the AMA and my organization, the AOA, are not physicians or optometrists--they are pros that run professional organizations. Well, duh. My secretary isn't an engineer, either. Maxprop wrote: 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. Not even close. They are executive directors, people who plan and execute the agendas of the organizations. They are very well compensated for their expertise and performance. ... They do the legislative liason footwork, make the legislative contacts, Sure plan the agendas Not if the organizations are headed by members of the group they represent. Doctors as officers of the AMA for example. *They* set the agenda, not the office employees. How naive you are. If I referred to the executive director of our state professional organization as "an office employee," he'd laugh. Ever heard of policy-making as opposed to manning the desk? Sure. The doctors consult their executive directors and ask them for policy-making direction and guidance. Doctors, as a rule, are great clinicians but lousy policy makers and planners. Executive directors are the movers and shakers of professional organizations--they help keep the membership on the right track. and execute the decisions made by the organization officers. Sure. ... 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. Your experience may not have been as close to the action as you might wish to believe. For example, if your sailing club has a hired manager, does he decide who gets the big perpetual trophies? Um, there generally isn't much competition nor trophies involved with professional organizations, Doug. They are not coffee making, skirt-swishing typists. 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. One could say that your company is run by & for the office manager; after all he makes a lot of decisions right? But if he is setting basic policy then you are abdicating from your role. Some presidents & boards do, most don't (IMHO of course). Something about self-interest... When did we begin talking about my company??? We were discussing professional organizations, and some not-so-professional, like the AARP. Nice attempt at obfuscation, but no cigar. Max |
It's good news week!
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:51:50 GMT, "Maxprop" said: I disagree that the AMA does this, Dave. The paid managers of professional organizations are hired by the membership, and would be fired if they didn't absolutely represent the membership's interests to the letter. As for the AARP, I suspect what you say is true, at least that's been my observation. And the board of directors of a public company is at least in theory hired by the shareholders--the owners of the company. Does the board always represent shareholders' interests to the letter? I don't think so. That would depend upon the heirarchical structure of the organization. If the board of directors is analagous to the officers and board members of a professional organization, then those people would be beholden to represent the interests of the membership rather than their own personal agendas. That's what annual elections are all about. In all honesty I can't recall the officers and the board of the American Optometric Association ever promoting an agenda that differed from the interests and needs of the general membership. I suspect the AMA is similar in that respect. With respect to the AARP, I'd never join because I know the agenda of the officers and the board are quite at odds with my own beliefs. But in practice it's extremely difficult for shareholders to oust a board. Why? Because it's an expensive undertaking, and with management in control of the machinery of communication the board has to really go haywire before any one shareholder will be willing to try. Same thing with membership organizations. Not the same with professional organizations. The top officers are replaced annually, or at least they cycle through from sec'y/treasurer to VP to President, and then out. The board is also completely replaced every few years. Unlike a corporation where board members wield power and control the ability to remain in their seats, professional groups replace all their top people routinely. You are certainly closer to the AMA than I am, The AOA, actually, but your point is valid--the organizations are similar in most respects. and perhaps its professional managers are more responsive than those of other organizations. But I suspect that the control of the machinery of communications is in the hands of the managers, and that will inevitably be a major factor. It is, but those executive directors do the bidding of the membership. They do, however, guide and direct the membership in the most expeditious paths for achieving goals, such as legislative actions, etc. They are paid to do so. Max |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:27 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com