I know not how many of you are following the Lucy Kellaway on Deloitte drama that has been unfolding the past few weeks. The gist of it is this: Lucy Kellaway who is a columnist for the Financial Times, did a piece titled "Motivational memos must make their message clear", in which she criticizes a memo written by Jim Quigley CEO of Deloitte addressed to all Deloitte employees. I can't comment on the memo cause I have not read it but let's just say Lucy did not pull any punches.
A few weeks later she was back on the Deloitte case, in a piece titled "A motivational missive that amounts to mental torture" in which she takes a swipe at an employee handbook distributed to Deloitte employees in
"Forty-one years ago, chairman Mao distributed 900m copies of The Little Red Book to the people of
The article then reads on... "before the book is pulled out, two points are scored. One point for "Your" with its bogus implication that the book is personal to you, and another for "compliments of". This reminds me of the waiter at my local Italian restaurant who says "compliments of the house" as he produces two unasked-for glasses of liqueur.
This article is hilarious, but the drama does not end there. On Monday just gone (09/07/07 - dd/mm/yy), in another article titled, "Today’s punishment is meted out with politesse", Lucy then lets us readers know that she has now been invited to the Deloitte offices to discuss all this articles and get her comeuppance or retribution of sorts.
I am really enjoying these articles by Ms. Kellaway and look forward to the next instalment.
Another exchange that has intrigued me is one between Michael Moore, the film/documentary maker and CNN or to be more precise Dr Sanjay Gupta.
Appearing on The Situation Room, hosted by Wolf Blitzer, Moore went on a diatribe on CNN after Dr. Gupta questioned some of the facts that were presented in Michael Moore's recent film Sicko. I have to say I have been avoiding this film because my opinion on healthcare is this: though it might be ideal to have free universal healthcare on paper, healthcare systems across the world have very costly supply chains. From research and bringing medicine to shelves to actually training of doctors and nurses. To me it is not sustainable to expect an efficient healthcare system on a low taxes economy, free and universal at the point of consumption but with high supply chain costs. Maybe I am wrong but I have first hand experience of the British National Health Service (NHS) and I my opinion stands.
In other news a British juror arrested after listening to music under hijab
The woman was a juror in a murder trial in
No Comment!
2 comments:
First off, congratulations to Wolf for maintaining composure like that! I guess that's what separates CNN from FoxNews where Moore would have been cut off in the second minute. Well done Wolf...
Anyway, Moore has a chip on his shoulder (more like a log, really) but that doesn't mean that his facts are wrong; it just means that he has biased the film, like 'Fahrenheit 9/11', to only have his arguments. This isn't unusual or unethical since almost all arguments are waged thus; people rarely give the other side as well as their own. What would be unethical or wrong, and he seems to be doing it at least some times, is to leave an impression that he has given all the information that people require in order to make a final decision on the matter. This isn't the case.
At any rate, that's not a reason for you to not watch the movie since I suspect that it contains evidence that neither you nor I are aware about. You can decide to not watch it if you dislike him and don't want to enrich him further, or you feel like you've exhaustively researched the matter and his movie is just propaganda.
Also, in response to your statement, "...it might be ideal to have [free] universal healthcare on paper...", I should say that Universal Healthcare does not exist only on paper; it actually exists. And all the industrialised Western nations have it except (drums please!) the USA.
Yes, that's right. Even with a GDP of US$13.62 trillion we can't manage to find a way to implement it. To avoid an argument on what 'Western' means, it should suffice that dozens of countries have UH including two, Afghanistan and Iraq, that are paid for by U.S tax dollars. I (along with other American taxpayers) should be fuming at this because, for the record, I have no insurance and it's a good thing I don't get sick.
I think Moore's losing the composure he used to have when he started doing these exposés but he's still on point enough to warrant attention. His utility in society is that he brings attention to issues that need it; he's not necessarily the one with solutions or even the best arguments.
But I'll leave it at that.
Allow me to clarify something that I stated earlier. When I said "though it might be ideal to have free universal healthcare on paper, healthcare systems across the world have very costly supply chains." What I meant is this: Yes there are countries that provide free universal healthcare for their citizens. Free at the point of consumption. But this does not necessarily equate to an efficient healthcare system.
Something has got to give and in the case of France, they have accepted that they will pay higher taxes inorder to fund this. As for the United Kingdom, this is the perfect example of what is wrong with the idea of free universal healthcare. The NHS works on quotas and queues whereby doctors can keep you waiting for upto 2 hours so that they can diagnose a soft tissue injury. And of this 2 hours, atleast 1hr 20mins was spent waiting.(I speak through personal experience)
Post a Comment