09/17/04
Guest Editorial
"Here's a word for you to add to your glossary. Where it occurs there are usually consequences that you could expand upon. After sharing what I've been told,
I will suggest why this entry may be timely."  — foreword by the contributor.

Nepotism

by Respecta
[edited - PF]

Long story short. My father helped build up a small manufacturer. Owner brought in his newly graduated son to learn the business – but from the top – in possibly an inspiration for "The Dilbert Principle."

Sonny was likable and bright enough, but tried to make up for how he got where he was by making decisions too independently. He was so determined to make his own mark that he went and did what he thought was clever things without asking anyone who had real life experiences. Deliveries slipped and company name slipped quicker.

As things turned increasingly sour, he became defensive and then stubborn.  Nearly buried the family biz as his pop kept him in nearly too long.

Owner came to his senses and restored my pop to a position to restore reliability to the firm's name. My father went to dissatisfied customers and made concessions and managed to pull the company out of the fire based on his reputation alone. "Oh, the grown-ups are back" was something he heard frequently.  Owner treated my father very, very well thereafter, and the company thrived, and Pop had a life-lesson to pass along to us kids.

Why would an entry on nepotism be timely?

I've seen it suggested on the web that one of the reasons Dan Rather won't reveal the source of the forgeries is that the source is his activist daughter. Dan Rather isn't the owner of CBS, but he may be using whatever leverage he has against his employers to continue to stonewall this fiasco for CBS, and for MSM by association. The majority of MSM has begun to see this; CBS remains stubborn. Rather's inexplicable stance could be from partisanship, could be from wounded pride, could be from hubris, and could be for any number of emotional and irrational causes displayed by greater men passed their prime.

But it is more easily understandable if he's protecting his daughter, compounded by the fact that it may have been through him that she was in a position to pass this bit of political corruption up the ladder..

If this is so, then Dan is just not as smart or as concerned with the consequences of his actions to people who work for and with him as was my father's boss. He seems quite willing to torpedo his entire industry. Might it be to protect his baby girl? If passing off the forgeries was a criminal act, he has even more reason to be protective, does he not?

Apparently that conclusion is not my opinion alone. But nobody with clout seems to pressing the issue. Someone needs to press Dan Rather on this suggestion. Or failing that, maybe press his "loving" daughter to step up and admit her involvement if that be the case.



|