Caring- about the wrong stuff!

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had two interesting articles side by side. The centerpiece was titled "How to Pull Off 'CEO Casual' The Goal: Shed the Stodgy Suit but Keep The Authority; One Executive's Views On Custom Shirts and Chest Hair." The article goes on to say that Ms. Anni Sarah Lam, CEO of Parc Landon, a Houston-based music, sports and entertainment agency, displays her 'insider status by wearing crisp jeans and trendy jackets to meetings. She signals her chief executive stature by carrying Louis Vuitton handbags and Montblanc pens.'

The article to the far right was titled "To Be Old, Frail And Evicted: Patients at Risk. As Nursing Homes Shift Focus To Short-Term Rehab Care, Families Must Look Elsewhere." According to the article "Across the country, nursing homes are forcing out frail and ill residents. While federal law permits nursing-home evictions in some circumstances, state officials and patient advocates say facilities often go too far, seeking to evict those who are merely inconvenient or too costly. Residents with dementia or demanding families are among the most vulnerable, particularly if -- like Ms. Nguyen and the other Lodi residents -- they depend on Medicaid to pay their bills, the officials and advocates say.Those on Medicaid bring facilities as little as half what they can get from residents who pay out of pocket, with private health insurance or through Medicare, the federal-state health program for the elderly."

Designer handbags and clothing for some, nursing home evictions for some. If a society is judged by how it takes care of its young and its old, then ours would get an F. The Commercial culture would spin this positively and say that there is only one way from here and that is up. However we could be floundering at the bottom for a while.

Not 'Intel Inside' but 'Rotten Inside'- Even the sky is not the limit to Corporate Greed

The WSJ, in a rare display of investigative journalism, unearthed and reported yet another "slick" move by some corporations to pay more to executives and avoid taxes.

"Companies Tap Pension Plans To Fund Executive Benefits Little-Known Move Uses Tax Break Meant For Rank and File."

The first two paragraphs say it all:
"At a time when scores of companies are freezing pensions for their workers, some are quietly converting their pension plans into resources to finance their executives' retirement benefits and pay.

In recent years, companies from Intel Corp. to CenturyTel Inc. collectively have moved hundreds of millions of dollars of obligations for executive benefits into rank-and-file pension plans. This lets companies capture tax breaks intended for pensions of regular workers and use them to pay for executives' supplemental benefits and compensation."

At a time when these and other companies have eliminated pension plans for new employees and restricted contributions or eliminated them for long time employees, they have shifted the long term payment obligations for senior managers on to the Pension Plans. These moves unduly benefit the senior managers and also reduce the tax payments to the government- a double whammy for the tax payer employee.

This is yet another reason for me to stress even more the ethical aspects of business, especially to accounting and finance majors. Unfortunately my job is nearly impossible when the students see this type of egregious behavior by the "leading companies."

"Demolishing" the Taxpayers - the Murdoch/WSJ way

On July 30, the Murdoch Sham Paper WSJ ran an article titled "How to Shake Off the Mortgage Mess." According to CNBC's count, the federal government has already made roughly $1.4 trillion available to refinance mortgage debt since the housing meltdown began. The main idea in this story is that the government should buy up houses and demolish them to reduce physical supply of houses. This article concludes by saying "So far, Washington has put its political capital into trying to refinance salvageable homes for unsalvageable homeowners, when a relevant policy would consist of judiciously buying unsalvageable houses and demolishing them. Fannie and Freddie's strength is housing market software: They could be put to work devising a least-cost, maximum-bang strategy for demolishing unoccupied homes to preserve as much value as possible for the homeowners and mortgage creditors who remain.

Of course, right now their overriding imperative is to avoid recognizing losses rather than rushing toward them -- which is why Fannie and Freddie should be nationalized (and later privatized). One way or the other, taxpayers will end up owning thousands of unwanted houses. It's not too soon to begin limiting our costs."

So Murdoch and his gang want the taxpayers to take on the burden of this mortgage mess, which was created by the leaders of the financial institutions while the latter enjoy their vacations in their private islands. Not only that, but these ethically crooked people want the government to demolish good livable housing and reduce its value to 0.

The question is - when will the U.S. public wise up to what is going on?

Ob(ama)esity

Sen. Obama comes across as a fit individual, both physically and mentally.

The Rupert Murdoch sham(eless) paper WSJ tries to spin even this perception negatively-

"Too Fit to Be President? Facing an Overweight Electorate, Barack Obama Might Find Low Body Fat a Drawback"
According to this article, "in a nation in which 66% of the voting-age population is overweight and 32% is obese, could Sen. Obama's skinniness be a liability? Despite his visits to waffle houses, ice-cream parlors and greasy-spoon diners around the country, his slim physique just might have some Americans wondering whether he is truly like them."

So, the public wants to elect someone who is truly like them? Like George Bush?

It appears that there is no floor to the level to which the Murdoch gang will stoop to.

I, for one, will only go to a doctor who is fitter than I am. That is the only way I can get better.