Friday, January 07, 2005
Nepotism is a terrible thing... sauf que...
I personally abhor to see such and such get all the breaks - all the good job assignments - all the promotions and the like... just because he or she happens to be on good to excellent terms with somebody in power...
"It's not what you know, it's who you know"... eh?
Well, if things have not evolved beyond that sorry state of affairs in 2005...
it never will now! Will it?!?
To every rule - there is an exception or two though! ;)
When the preference is given to a candidate who shares your convictions and beliefs... maybe, MAYBE then it is justifiable... or, at least, explainable to give such a candidate the nod over all the others. I mean - place yourself in the shoes of the powers that be rep who makes the cut - YOU take the decision... who would you choose? Some chump who is diametrically opposed to everything you think is -and likely know to be- true... OR will you elect to pick the sensible choice - especially if you are going to be working closely with him/her, in the future...?
It is simply a question of common sense in the end...
Right?
You must make sure team work will be fluid and effortless - and not come by with strained compromise after strained compromise!!! That would not be wise...
Now, competence must be there too...
Birds of a feather... and all that... sure...
But the job will be botched up and the end result half-baked if the birds in question are nothing more than two coo-coos... or two quacks! *LOL*
"It's not what you know, it's who you know"... eh?
Well, if things have not evolved beyond that sorry state of affairs in 2005...
it never will now! Will it?!?
To every rule - there is an exception or two though! ;)
When the preference is given to a candidate who shares your convictions and beliefs... maybe, MAYBE then it is justifiable... or, at least, explainable to give such a candidate the nod over all the others. I mean - place yourself in the shoes of the powers that be rep who makes the cut - YOU take the decision... who would you choose? Some chump who is diametrically opposed to everything you think is -and likely know to be- true... OR will you elect to pick the sensible choice - especially if you are going to be working closely with him/her, in the future...?
It is simply a question of common sense in the end...
Right?
You must make sure team work will be fluid and effortless - and not come by with strained compromise after strained compromise!!! That would not be wise...
Now, competence must be there too...
Birds of a feather... and all that... sure...
But the job will be botched up and the end result half-baked if the birds in question are nothing more than two coo-coos... or two quacks! *LOL*
Comments:
<< Home
Nepotism 101 example 1.0:
President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Haggler to head
up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs
Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two years,
during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush Administration
is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This position
does not require Congressional approval. The FDA's reproductive Health Drugs
Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs used
in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties,including hormone therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy termination.
Dr. Haggler, the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then
and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing Women with
case studies from Hager's practice. His views of reproductive health care
are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Haggler is a
practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to
prescribe contraceptives to unmarried
women. In the book Dr.Haggler wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the
Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome
should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an editor and
contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr. Haggler appears to have
endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control
pill is an abortifacient. We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious
beliefs may color his assessment of technologies that are necessary to
protect women's lives for to preserve and promote women's health. Hager's
track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical
decision-making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate e candidate to serve
as chair of this committee. Critical drug public policy and research must not
be held hostage by antiabortion politics. Members of this important panel should
be appointed on the basis of science and medicine, rather than politics and
religion. American women deserve no less. There is something you can do.
Below is a statement to be sent to the White House, opposing the placement
of Haggler.
Fact is though, Haggler was appointed some time ago.
from www.snopes.com:
"Whatever one's opinion of Dr. Hager, his appointment is a done deal. Dr. Hager is now a member of the FDA's Advisory Committee on Reproductive Health Drugs, so a petition aimed at preventing him from reaching that position is moot. (Perhaps as a result of the controversy stirred up by the original position, Dr. Hager was appointed to sit on the committee, but not to chair it.) In June 2004, Dr. Hager was reappointed to the committee for an additional year."
President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Haggler to head
up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs
Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two years,
during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush Administration
is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This position
does not require Congressional approval. The FDA's reproductive Health Drugs
Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs used
in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties,including hormone therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy termination.
Dr. Haggler, the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then
and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing Women with
case studies from Hager's practice. His views of reproductive health care
are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Haggler is a
practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to
prescribe contraceptives to unmarried
women. In the book Dr.Haggler wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the
Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome
should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an editor and
contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr. Haggler appears to have
endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control
pill is an abortifacient. We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious
beliefs may color his assessment of technologies that are necessary to
protect women's lives for to preserve and promote women's health. Hager's
track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical
decision-making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate e candidate to serve
as chair of this committee. Critical drug public policy and research must not
be held hostage by antiabortion politics. Members of this important panel should
be appointed on the basis of science and medicine, rather than politics and
religion. American women deserve no less. There is something you can do.
Below is a statement to be sent to the White House, opposing the placement
of Haggler.
Fact is though, Haggler was appointed some time ago.
from www.snopes.com:
"Whatever one's opinion of Dr. Hager, his appointment is a done deal. Dr. Hager is now a member of the FDA's Advisory Committee on Reproductive Health Drugs, so a petition aimed at preventing him from reaching that position is moot. (Perhaps as a result of the controversy stirred up by the original position, Dr. Hager was appointed to sit on the committee, but not to chair it.) In June 2004, Dr. Hager was reappointed to the committee for an additional year."
So, in other words, forget about sending any statements anywhere... you don't mess with the FDA... it messes with you and your health... ok?
*Sigh*
Post a Comment
*Sigh*
<< Home