a semi-regular column of Truths, Half Truths, and Mostly Truths by Semi.
Volume I, Issue 11 · posted April 20, 2001
FROM: The Board of Directors, United States Corp.
TO: Shareholders
DATE: December 12, 2000
SUBJECT: New Management
The past decade has seen our company operating within a challenging business environment. The Board of Directors was forced to take a less dominant role in developing our operational plan while increased competition for our limited resources deviated us from our primary mission.
Fortunately, business moves in cycles, and the recent mandated changes in upper management allowed the BOD to reassert its leadership role. You may have received recent reports of some dissent in the BOD regarding our overall direction. We are writing you now to assure you that, although there has been some disagreement among members, the majority understands the need to implement established business practices in order to maximize our overall profitability and reestablish our leadership position in the competitive marketplace.
We appreciate that our first commitment is to you, the company shareholder. For that reason, the BOD recently took the unprecedented step of inserting itself into the executive selection process when it became clear to us that challenges to procedure might serve to thwart our continued influence.
There have been some questions concerning how the BOD could take such a determining role against the will of the majority of shareholders, but we feel that our governing model allows us to make these kind of hard business decisions when the future of our company is at stake.
We are also confident that, once the new management is able to fully implement its business strategy and return near-term profitability to our chief investors, the majority of shareholders will come to understand the necessity of sacrificing the will of the many on the altar of common good.
Patronizingly Yours,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
William H. Rehnquist, Chairman
Anthony M. Kennedy
Sandra Day O’ Connor
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Dissenting:
Stephen G. Breyer
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
David Souter
John Paul Stevens
When the threads came together, it all made sense. In fact, it's the only thing that makes sense. I now understand that what our country is experiencing as a result of the Y2K elections is nothing less than a hostile corporate takeover.
Look at the credentials of the new administration and the series of actions that led to its ascent, and try to picture the events through this world view:
The United States of America is a corporation and the most influential member of a coalition of similar corporations, the World Trade Organization (WTO). The corporation solidified its position as a dominant international force half a century ago through its alliance with the Global Military Industrial Complex.
Just over ten years ago, the corporation experienced its ultimate triumph in the global marketplace when its primary competitor, Soviet Union Amalgamated, went out of business. The CEO of the corporation declared "a New World Order" and proceeded to stake out new competitive ventures in other parts of the world such as the Mid-East.
Unfortunately for the corporation (in this view), the shareholders did not appreciate the administration's long-term global strategy and, through referendum, brought in a fresh set of younger executives who envisioned "a new economy." This new management lowered the corporation's overall debt and rewarded a broader class of investors while lowering the rate of return for the "old school" monied investors.
Fearing this populist appeal, the "old economy" traditionalists looked to a familiar name to headline their crusade to regain authority: the scion of the former CEO, now the head of a subsidiary branch of Bush Inc., a successful family business with offices in Texas and Florida.
Promising a new kind of leadership ("compassionate conservative"), the campaign hinted at vague threats of an impending economic collapse and the necessity to put "old economy" thinkers back in the board room. In actuality, the primary aim of this new/old administration will be to return investment rewards to the old-school patrons.
After eight successful years of new management, the shareholders held another referendum and, apparently unconvinced by the warnings of imminent doom, voted to keep the next generation of the current management in office. Fortunately for the conservatives, a class of shareholders in a region under control by the other scion of Bush Inc. had their votes nullified.
The Board of Directors of the corporation, most of them appointed by previous administrations, used their authority to interpret company bylaws to hand-pick their next CEO by the narrowest of majorities. In return, the CEO will fill vacancies on the Board when any current members resign.
The new CEO sets about rehiring many of his father's team and restoring old business policies. As often happens following corporate shakedowns, business holdings will be restructured and unprofitable sectors will have to be sacrificed. It is understood that this reduction of the workforce is for "the good of the company", as it ultimately rewards those stockholders who have invested the most.
"Now wait a minute" you may say "even accepting your analogy, is that so bad? After all, the business of America is business. What's wrong with having an actual MBA in charge instead of a bunch of media-loving, bleeding-heart whiny liberal lawyers?"
Stay tuned...
what do you think? email me
As usual, all definitions have been liberated from Dictionary.com. This week's words all have to do with the business of Business:
agendum \A*gen"dum\, n.; something to be done, especially an item on a program or list.
Agendum is another one of those under-utilized words; I have often heard people use the more problematic "agenda items".
stratagem \Strat"a*gem\, n. an artifice or trick in war for deceiving the enemy; hence, in general, artifice; deceptive device; secret plot; evil machination.
Another misunderstood term: Strategy is the employment or use of Stratagem.
questuary \Ques"tu*a*ry\, n. One employed to collect profits. [L. quaestuarius, from quaestus gain, profit, quaerere, quaesitum, to seek for, earn.]
The concept of The Supreme Court as Corporate Board of Directors is not wholly original. I first saw the correlation made by James K. Galbraith, professor of government at the LBJ School of Public Affairs and Director of the University of Texas Inequality Project, in a searing critique he wrote last December for American Prospect Online. He even has a term for it: "Corporate Democracy". See his article at: http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2000/12/galbraith-j-12-21.html
Not mad enough yet? Read A Layman's Guide to the United States Supreme Court Decision in Bush v. Gore at http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/marklevineesq/myhomepage/election.html
Wanna do something about it? Visit the Gore in 2004 Petition website at http://www.petitiononline.com/2004Gore/
any more thoughts? email me
"If you ask someone, 'Can you play the violin?' and he says, 'I don't know, I've not tried, perhaps I can,' you laugh at him. Whereas about writing, people always say: 'I don't know, I have not tried,' as though one had only to try and one would become a writer." --Leo Tolstoy
All Contents (except the stuff I stole) Copyright © 2001 S.M.
McCord.
Redistribution allowed, provided you cite http://www.semitrue.com.