QUICK LINKS
Trickery, Trickery, Trickery
The cartoons of Don Larson in his “Far Side” books have often amused me.
Some years ago he drew a cartoon of a dog giving a lesson to a class of puppies. The big dog was pointing to a picture of a cat on the screen. The cat had its back bowed with its hair sticking straight out causing the cat to appear much larger than it actually was. The caption read, “Trickery, Trickery, Trickery.” That was amusing.
What is equally tricky, but not amusing, is the extent that some liberal secularists will go to achieve their ends.
Hours before the deadline for filing for the Washington State Supreme Court position #2, “Michael” Johnson filed to run against “Stephen” Johnson.
Senator Steve Johnson has served Washington well, with dignity and would like to extend his service to serve on the Supreme Court.
“Michael” Johnson, as best we can tell, hasn’t served, little is known about him except that his firm is a member of the Greater Seattle Business Association and a member of the gay chamber of commerce.
Would a last minute entry on the ballot be a sincere desire to serve or an opportunity to confuse voters because the last names are the same?
You decide.
And what about the lawsuit filed against Mike McGavic? A lady with strong ties to very active secularists has filed the suit saying that she thinks Safeco gave McGavic too much money when he retired from Safeco, after turning the company around.
You never know for sure what people’s motives are; but the words “Trickery, Trickery, Trickery,” come to mind.
_________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add this blog to your email inbox.
15 Comments:
or maybe you're paranoid.
Let's see, Safeco give him millions more than contractually obligated to as he leaves the company... hmmm... Is that the best use of corporate assets? btw -he's running for office and could use this extra money for the campaign... But if Safeco wanted to donate the money directly to his campaign, they would have... oh wait, that's not allowed! You're right it's a meritless lawsuit.
Ok, seriously. How can anyone think that the lawsuit against Mike McGavick isn't politically-motivated??? Let's look at some of the events leading to the filing of the lawsuit:
- About 2 months ago an attorney, Knoll Lowney, contacted a democratic blogger, David Goldstein, and asked him to help him find someone to bring this suit against Mike McGavick. A 28 year-old waitress, Emily Schwartzman, was informed of the call to action by her mom who read the blog and asked her to contact the attorney, and voila! We have a plaintiff. Nevermind that she owns less than 50 shares of Safeco.
Regarding the payout itself, Mike McGavick didn't arbitrarily decide to give himself the money, it was carefully reviewed and approved by the company's board of directors, which includes our former DEMOCRATIC Governor, Gary Locke.
Wake up and smell the politics, people.
Why shouldn't McGavick get a bonus for turning the company around? It was the board's decision. It wasn't under-the-table money.
The Michael Johnson scenario is an obvious cheap shot at Steve Johnson, who unfortunately has a common last name. It's disgusting how liberals are abusing the political system and doing whatever they can to sneak their candidates into office. Reminds me of how Gregoire snuck her way into office. Absolutely disgusting.
Yes, the lawsuit was partially politically motivated (and they don't deny it), because their concern is that the bonus was politically motivated. The bonus was an attempt to circumvent political campaign donation limits.
However, the lawsuit was also meritorious from a shareholder perspective. For example, imagine yourself as a manager in a large corporation. One of your best employees is leaving, and you decide to give them a surprise bonus (on their way out) of several thousand dollars because they were an outstanding employee. How do you think upper management would react to your request for spending these unnecessary funds? How would the shareholders benefit from this unnplanned and unnecessary gift?
Notice how conservatives align themselves with large corporate interests and liberals align themselves with individual human interests?
See--the above is an example for you other liberals who can't conduct themselves properly. Anger, hatefulness and irrationality make you appear psycho and not too bright.
8:54 thank you for your imput.
Your welcome. I'm always happy to provide 'imput'.
ok smarty pants! Although that makes me smile! Your "imput" is always welcome but your "input" is probably better!
Has anyone looked at how much Maria Cantwell received when she left Real Networks?
Or is she not qualified since she didn't build up the company like McGavick did at Safeco(creating jobs which benefits you and increasing revenue which created revenue for the state when we desperatly needed through their B&O taxes paid which also benefits you and "individual human interests")
Isn't is customary for successful executives to receive bonuses as they leave? What happens if McGavick loses? Wouldn't Safeco want to keep him happy in case he is available again? He did a lot of good for Safeco and Safeco employees.
It is easy to say that convervatives favor big corporations. But if you look a little deeper you will see that corporations also benefit "individual human interests". Were you saying the same thing when most of Boeing left? Or were you simply blaming big corporations even though liberals jack up business costs making WA one of the less desirable states because of all the regulations and business taxes. (while WA is very generous in its unemployment payouts--it is driving businesses away who can pay far less in other states. I'm not convinced that liberal philosophy is really good for individual human interests) Those lost jobs aren't about "individual human interests"?
Simply saying conservatives favor big corporations and liberals favor individual human interests seems like shallow thinking to me. It si also overly simplistic.
I believe (but don't know for sure) that the money Cantwell received was from stock options that were negotiated while she was still employed. Stock options normally serve as a performance incentive while one is still employed, not as a surprise parting gift.
The appropriateness of the Safeco gift will be determined by the lawsuit, as it should be. Some shareholders felt it was potentially misconduct by the Board the shareholders they hired to run the company. This is the approriate way for the owners to get to the bottom of this.
Corporations rarely operate to benefit individual human interests - unless that is their charter over profits. Otherwise, their only purpose is to make money. Your example of Boeing only serves to prove my point, they moved to maximize profits by moving to an area with lower taxes, hence greater profits won over the interests of the employees.
Regarding the last statement, it is overly simplistic, however it's not shallow - it's accurate. You may rationalize that you are really helping people by favoring corporations but it's just another form of the tired trickle down theory that has never worked.
"Corporations rarely operate to benefit individual human interests"
That is not what I said.
What I said was:
"corporations also benefit "individual human interests".
You write well--seem thoughtful--yet hear what you want to. I saw that in some of the other liberal statements. The blog clearly stated "challenge" yet they hear "appeal" when it is not an appeal. To your credit, you are cordial and rational unlike some of the other liberal comment writers.
Thank you for acknowledging that I'm rational. Isn't agnosticism based on rational thought, as opposed to blind faith?
You have no comment on the debunking of your Cantwell comparison?
You claim I hear what I want to hear. Any specifics?
Again, your claim that corporations also benefit individual human interests appears to be the tired trickle down theory. Corporations are much better citizens (and I don't like the idea of corporate personhood even though those activist judges have acknowledged it) when required to be so under law.
Finally, how does the act of Safeco skirting campaign donation limits laws trickle down to help individual human interests?
Any specifics? I had just given you one.
I didn't have a Cantwell theory. I had a question.
There is one more specific for you.
"Isn't agnosticism based on rational thought, as opposed to blind faith?"
Faith isn't entirely blind. God gave us an intellect to use. You may be surprised to know that Pastors (I don't know about "reverends") tend to be vry well read and voraciously consume current events.
When one becomes a Christian their perspective begins to change. I don't know about others, but my first changes were I saw overwhelming beauty in nature when I had been oblivious to it before, and developed a hunger for knowledge, and an appetite for current events. And there was the beginning of what Christians call "conviction". That is when God begins to mold your character and shows you things about yourself that aren't as nice as you'd like. Don't get me wrong--you would have thought I was really nice before I became a Christian. But we can't always see the warts on our heart that need removal (things like unkind thoughts and attitutes--we all have them) - but God can.
And I don't try to do right because I'm afraid of punishment as an agnostic said in a more current comment. That is how I saw it before I became a Christian. Maybe others are afraid of punishment and I suppose that could be very useful. But I want to do right because I love God. In most things it is easy to do right. But it isn't always easy to love someone who has done you wrong.
"A lady with strong ties to very active secularists have filed..."
---implication badness
But $28 million to mcgavic from hard working peoples' insurance fees paid to safeco when he quits working
---but this is all goodness?
Thessalonians 2:2 reminds me everday how deceived people of faith are these days...Gary who are you trying to trick with your words. Shame on you.
Post a Comment
<< Home