I hear ya Ania, and are with you on drowning the (insert very bad words here), but take consolation in this:-
A golden bridge may lead them to a safe haven, but for how long ?
Their deeds will revisit them.
Unfortunately, your sentiment -- though admirable -- runs directly counter to my experience. In this world, the larger and more powerful you are (and thus the greater the magnitude of your mistakes), the less accountable you are. A janitor who misplaces $20 in office equipment may get fired and denied a favorable reference; a CEO (or politician) who mismanages or misplaces billions of dollars gets a Powerball-sized severence package, a politically correct send-off, and every opportunity to spend the rest of his days at lucrative speaking engagements or in other honoraria/consulting positions.
That article Ania posted shows exactly what's wrong with our political process. What's most striking is that the theft of the computer money (the main subject of the article) is the least of the problem. Every single person cited as having worked for Legacy drew an extremely generous check for, um, spreading propaganda? Bribing congresspeople? Pretending to be important? I'm wracking my brain here.
The justification for those salaries is so scant, so elusive, that the lament at the end of the article comes off as unintentionally (and morbidly) hilarious: "Ohh, think of all the extra
children we could have reached if our tech expert hadn't stolen $4 million from under our well-compensated noses and run off to Nigeria!" Lady, seriously? Donate 2/3rds of your publicly-subsidized salary for 8 years and look! $4 million, like friggin magic! Or better yet, have you ever considered spending some of your own bloated salary on extra staff to man the supply chain so that this crap can't happen? Just a thought.
Don't get me wrong; I don't begrudge anyone a generous salary, even one that isn't morally justifiable. In fact, the problem here is precisely that morality's been incorrectly injected into what should be a fairly straightforward cost/benefit analysis. Is anyone clamoring for more ugly anti-tobacco advertisements? Is there anyone left in the entire western world who isn't aware of the health risks of smoking? Where, then, is the legitimate (as opposed to corrupt) demand for Ms Healton's services? There isn't any. Not in the private sector, not in the public sector.
The bottom line is that when you're making that kind of scratch, you don't get to style yourself as an altruist. And you surely don't get to justify your salary -- even as you remark on
evidence of your own incompetence -- on the
basis of altruism. The implied logic at work in Healton's commentary is so twisted I'm getting dizzy.
Say what you will about big or small government. I think everyone can agree that there are better places to put public money than in Ms Healton's pocket. Or even in her organization's pocket. But positions like hers are a dime a dozen, and they're handed out willy nilly to those with connections. You can bet that prominent ANTZ will therefore find no shortage of absurdly comfortable fallback options, in or out of tobacco control, no matter what happens in our little war.
The important thing is that we
win that war. Sorry for rambling.
