aubreyturner.org

The Fuqua Report is a periodic survey conducted among graduating MBAs at a number of graduate schools¹ across the country.  According to their website:

“Its goal is to determine the prevailing attitudes, career plans and values of graduating MBAs from top-tier business schools.”

Normally I wouldn’t have paid any attention to something like this, but a friend of mine read about it and noticed an interesting result.

One of the survey questions is “Are there industries in which you would not work because of political, social or ethical concerns?”  Of the total number of respondents, 63% responded yes to this question.  Among those, 36% said they would not work in the firearms industry versus 3% in 2000.  Interestingly enough, the percentage who would not work for tobacco producers declined to 58% from 94% in 2000.

Here is the table: (I hope they don’t mind that I reproduced it here, but I thought it interesting enough that it should be included)

     

     

     

     

   

     

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

   

     

     

     

     

     

   

   

     

     

     

     

     

   

   

     

     

     

     

     

   

   

     

     

     

     

     

   

   

     

     

     

     

     

   

   

     

     

     

     

     

   

   

     

     

     

     

     

   

   

     

     

     

     

     

   

   

     

     

     

     

     

   

   

     

     

     

     

     

   

   

     

     

     

     

   

   

     

     

   

   

     

     

   

 

		2003	2000	1998
Are there industries in which you would       not work because       of political, social or ethical concerns?
Yes:		63%	64%	64%
	Industries *
	Tobacco Producers	58%	94%	91%
	Firearms	36%	3%	N/A
	Alcohol Manufacturers	15%	26%	22%
	Defense Contractors	12%	16%	12%
	Oil and Gas Companies	7%	5%	8%
	Government	4%	N/A	N/A
	Accounting Firms	3%	N/A	N/A
	Foreign Owned Firms	1%	3%	3%
	*Percentages of respondents who indicated that there       were industries in which they would not work
	N/A – questions not asked in 2000/98

The question clearly identifies “political, social, or ethical” concerns as the basis for refusing to work in an industry.  This is of concern to me, since my initial take was that maybe they were afraid to work in the firearms industry because of economic concerns.  Perhaps it is possible that some of the respondents were considering the current state of the industry, but I’m concerned that the majority of these people are against the firearms industry for other reasons.  I’m also puzzled that this would be the case, since we’re being told that people are coming to a greater acceptance of firearms, especially given all that has happened since September 11, 2001.  Perhaps these people are being given a special brand of Kool Aid in these schools?

It makes me wonder if we aren’t seeing yet another effect of the strangle hold that Political Correctness has over our institutions of higher learning.  Or am I reading too much into this?

¹ The following schools were included in the survey:

Dartmouth College (Amos Tuck School of Business)

Duke University (Fuqua School of Business)

Indiana University (Kelley School of Business)

Northwestern University (Kellogg Graduate School of Management)

UCLA (The Anderson School)

UC Berkeley (Haas School of Business)

University of Chicago Graduate School of Business

University of Michigan Business School

University of Texas (McCombs School of Business)

University of Virginia (Darden Graduate School of Business)

I truly feel sorry for the people who are finding themselves under the ever growing shadow of the EU.  This is yet one more example of an overreaching bureaucracy expanding to interfere with every facet of life.

Given our overall arsenal, couldn’t we spare just one little nuke?  A stitch in time and all that…

While the subject of marketing is still on my mind, I need to say that that guy from the OxyClean commercials is quite possibly one of the most annoying people on the planet.  I wouldn’t miss it if he never did another commercial again (and from what I’ve heard the product doesn’t even work).

Has anyone else seen those Ford Super-Duty truck commercials where they’re towing something huge, but they never show it?  All you see are the reactions of people as the shadow passes over them.

It’s driving me crazy.  I simply must know what they’re towing!

Mrs. du Toit wrote a post today that struck a nerve with me.  I have a special loathing deep within for telemarketers.  They’re a plague of bottom feeding scum as far as I’m concerned.  Is that harsh?  Not really.  They invade my space and take up my time for their intrusive scripted crap. 

My phone exists for my personal use.  I give out the number to people whom I wish to have contact me.  It is not an open invitation for any dumbass with an autodialer to try to part me from my money. 

I have made it a policy that I will not buy anything from a telemarketer and I will not give money to any charity that calls me on the phone.  I make no exceptions, because I’ve learned from hard experience that once you do you’ll end up on a list of suckers which they pass around among the different groups.  Because of this unscrupulous behavior I don’t even accept calls from the NRA or other groups I’m sympathetic to.

But the lowest of these scum are the ones who call you up with prerecorded marketing messages.  It’s the telephonic equivalent of a drive-by.  And one company stands out for me as the worst offender and has earned my eternal enmity—Dish Network.  They called me with a prerecorded message that I could not hang up on (despite repeated attempts).  After trying to hang up and being unable to, I finally listened to what they were saying.  After a bit they gave me the option to “press 1 for more information about this offer” or to “press 2 to end this call.”  I pressed ‘2’ only to be informed that this “was an invalid option.”  At this point I hit ‘2’ about 35 more times, which kind of jammed the system for a while.  I was spitting mad by this point so I hit ‘1’ so I could chew on a person.  Unfortunately, these bastards must have anticipated this reaction, because it dumped me into a voicemail box where I had to leave a message.  I left them a very nasty message and I included my name and number and told them never to call me again or I’d get the FCC involved, since I was under the impression that the use of recorded messages is illegal.

Calls using artificial or prerecorded voice messages – including those that do not use autodialers – may not be made to residential telephone numbers except in the following cases:

• emergency calls needed to ensure the consumer’s health and safety;
• calls for which you have given prior consent;
• non-commercial calls;
• calls which don’t include any unsolicited advertisements;
• calls by, or on behalf of, tax-exempt non-profit organizations; or
• calls from entities with which you have an established business relationship.

Calls using autodialers or artificial or prerecorded voice messages may be placed to businesses, although the FCC’s rules prohibit the use of autodialers in a way that ties up two or more lines of a multi-line business at the same time.

If an autodialer is used to deliver an artificial or prerecorded voice message, that message must state, at the beginning, the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call. During or after the message, the caller must give the telephone number (other than that of the autodialer or prerecorded message player that placed the call) or address of the business, other entity, or individual that made the call. It may not be a 900 number or any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges.

Autodialers that deliver a recorded message must release the called party’s telephone line within 5 seconds of the time that the calling system receives notification that the called party’s line has hung up. In certain areas there might be a delay before you can get a dial tone again. Your local telephone company can tell you if there is a delay in your area.

Since then, I’ve used caller ID to screen all of my calls.  If I don’t recognize the name or number I will not answer.  I’m also on the Texas do-not-call list which has helped quite a bit.  But Dish Network can still kiss my ass.  I’ll never do business with them.  Ever.  (Which is why I’m glad their deal to buy DirecTV failed.)

I think that this woman doesn’t quite get it.  Not only did she endanger her child and the people around her, she’s also got some kind of persecution complex.

A woman who was charged with child endangering after breast-feeding her daughter while driving on the Ohio Turnpike claims the prosecutor has harassed her by piling on more charges against her.

Catherine Donkers, 29, who lives near Pittsburgh, was arrested May 8 and faces a court appearance in Ravenna on Aug. 6 on charges of failing to comply with a lawful order, obstructing official business, driving while under suspension, improper child restraint and child endangering.

Donkers has said she understood there was a risk in breast-feeding while driving, but she said using a cell phone behind the wheel was riskier.

Hmmm…  A persecution complex and a case of moral relativism.  Regardless of the relative merits of cell phone use, I think she’s forgotten about the dangerous position she put her baby into (i.e. between her and the steering wheel).

Oh, and those extra charges?  It seems that she had a little problem with stopping when the cops tried to pull her over.

The failure to comply charge alleged that she drove for three miles before stopping for troopers at a toll plaza southeast of Cleveland.

Dumbass.

Today’s Saturday Scruples:

1. Tidying up, you come across your teenage daughter’s diary. Do you read it?

   It would be very tempting, but I wouldn’t read it.  The only situation I could think of where I would do so would be if she were in some kind of trouble (i.e. had run away or was missing).

2. An executive at a large company will give you a big contract but demands a cash kickback. Do you agree to pay?

   No.  It’s illegal and the risks are too great.

3. You work closely with a colleague who has a bad stutter. When he struggles to finish sentences, do you help?

   No.

The Texas comptroller has refused to certify the new state budget, citing the requirement in the Texas constitution that all state budgets have to be balanced.

Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn rejected the state’s $117.4 billion budget on Thursday, sending the two-year spending plan back to the House of Representatives to rewrite before the end of the current fiscal year on Aug. 31.

“This is the first time a Legislature has sent the comptroller a budget that is not balanced,” Strayhorn said. “I cannot certify this budget because it is $185,900,000 short.”

The state constitution requires that the Legislature pass a balanced budget and it cannot be sent to the governor’s desk to sign into law without the comptroller’s OK.

“We need a certifiable ‘pay as you go’ budget by mid-July or the schools won’t open in September,” Strayhorn said.

The legislature is claming that it’s just a clerical error and that they put 2005 instead of 2006 by accident with regards to the allocation of some funds.  Regardless, the comptroller says that she cannot simply take their word for it and she has to go by the actual content of the budget as passed by the legislature.

To get an idea of just how messy this budget is, consider this:

Strayhorn said that her office tallied the financial effects of more than 4,000 pieces of legislation to arrive at the conclusion. One of the “paramount” developments was a last-minute transfer of $236 million from the General Fund to the Texas Mobility Fund, she said.

  I’ll never cease to be amazed at how much crap politicians can cram into a 140 day session.  How in the hell are we supposed to keep up with that much legislation? 

This promises to get interesting, because it is likely that the budget will have to be reconsidered in a special session.  Governor Perry was planning to call a special session to consider the redistricting issue (which has pissed off the Democrats so badly).  Now it appears that it may get taken up by budget issues, which might give the Dems leverage to derail the redistricting effort.

As of this morning, the local TV news was reporting that Perry is considering a lawsuit against the comptroller to force her to certify the budget.  I also heard some Democrat on TV saying that social services has been “cut to the bone” and that we should reconsider the “whole tax structure” in a special session.  That sounds suspiciously like socialist double-speak for increasing taxes, which is political suicide in Texas.

I think we’re going to have to watch these bastards really closely during the special session to make sure that they don’t raise taxes.

Just a friendly little reminder: keep your finger out of the space between the magazine well and the little lip at the bottom of a 1911 magazine if you don’t want a nasty little blood blister.  Alternately, you could avoid slamming the magazine into position and bypass the whole problem.

I got an email informing me that Jay Solo has moved to http://www.elhide.com/solo/.  He’s using pMachine on his own server.  It’s much spiffier than the old Blogspot site.