"Pro-business"

Why are national politicians who protect the perks of ceos, the tax evasions of companies, and so many other elements of our business culture that adds not a whit to productivity to be "pro-business"? Is Barney Frank who is trying to both protect the trust so necessary for the proper functioning of our financial markets while limiting the options of those who operate in those markets to reduce the benefits they gain from detracting from that trust "anti-business"? Is someone who insisted that to regulate is "anti-business" or someone who suggested that hiding CEO's salaries and option in assorted footnotes thus making it unusually difficult for the owners and potential owners (otherwise known as "shareholders") to evaluate such things is good for productivity, for the free and best flow of the allocation of capital, and for bolstering the long-terms interests of American business "anti-business." If yes, no wonder so much of our politics has little relation to the realities of the issues needed to be considered.

See Robert Caro comment on current Senate.

It so often happens that people evaluate situations after they happen based on who was involved rather than on what principles should be applied.

Why do we not hold those in our professions responsible for their actions?

Revealing and disturbing piece on the Time magazine blog regarding the dictating of interrogation techniques (including torture techniques however this administration spins it) of
"high value" al Quaeda operatives.

The "Principals" (including Rumsfeld, Powell, Ashcroft, and other senior Administration figures dictated and signed off on the minutest details of torture techniques acceptable to the U.S. Government. As the blog notes, just as with the now famous legal standoff by Ashcroft's bed, the former attorney general and probably least popular administration figure amongst liberals appears to be the one person with some perspective, suggesting that that "history will not judge us kindly." Principals sign off on interrogation techniques.

What relationship is there between companies in which top management is given giant golden parachutes (Merrill Lynch and Home Depot) and the culture of

What relationship is there between companies in which top management is given obscene giant golden parachutes (Merrill Lynch and Home Depot) and the culture of "we're here to make this company great through our collective efforts."

Is that an example of what Jim Collins calls "willful humility" of the best ceos? As he describes such people they'll do whatever it takes to make their company great while at the same time insisting that they are not the authors of the company's greatness. Are such people going to hold their heads up high and take a $200 million payout when they are dismissed? I think not.