HOME/ARCHIVES http://www.kazooweb.com/textes/
Merci de choisir un ou plusieurs textes plutôt
que d'imprimer la totalité... Les arbres vous sont reconnaissants...
Week 41, 2004
THE BEST SELLERS (last week's favorite articles): Summary
B*) CNN/Global Office: Women win the boardroom battle [Une enquête britannique montre les progrès des femmes dans l'avancement de leurs carrières.]
3*) The Boston Globe: Harshness of red marks has students seeing purple [Aux E-U, les profs n'utilisent plus l'encre rouge pour corriger les devoirs, de peur d'effrayer les élèves sensibles. RETOUR POUR UNE 3° SEMAINE !!!]]
********************************
THE REGULARS: Summary
A) Le texte
plus abordable de la semaine/Kidzworld: All About the Great Lakes [Topo
sur les Grands Lacs (c'est chez moi !!).]
B) CNN/Global
Office: Triumph roars back from adversity [La renaissance des motos Triumph.]
C) Slate/Dear
Prudence: Hello, How Much Do You Weigh? [Conseils sur la vie sentimentale
et la vie tout court. Cette semaine : Est-ce que "T'as maigri"
a remplacé "Bonjour" comme salutation. / Je ne sais pas
me comporter face à un ami a un cancer inopérable. / Je
viens d'apprendre que la dame que je fréquente m'a menti sur son
âge. /L'ex de mon mari veut que je l'invite à des rencontres
de famille.]
D) The
Washington Post/Miss Manners: Knocked for a loop [Conseils sur l'étiquette
et les bonnes manières. Cette semaine : J'ai du mal alors que je
fais du porte-à-porte pour soutenir un candidat aux prochaines
élections. / Un homme a coupé la file au buffet pour se
servir, et en plus, avec ses mains.]
THIS WEEK'S TEXTS: Summary
1) Ad Age: Marketers chase consumes into the bathroom [Nouveau territoire des publicitaires : les WC.]
2) The Los Angeles Times: King for a day in the geeky realm of televised trivia [La journée d'un commentateur au jeu télé Jeopardy (j'y ai joué à la version française !)]
3) The Ecomist: No way to run a democracy [Encore une analyse des dysfonctionnements de la vie politique américaine.
4) CNN/Management Masterclass: Hot to excite my team? [Conseils sur le managment. Ici, comment motiver son personnel ?]
5) Fashion United: Wal-Mart And Matalan Said To Be Close To Takeover [Nouvelles de la reprise de Matalan par Wal-Mart.]
6) The Economist: The global business environment [Le regard de The Economist sur le même rapport de la Banque mondiale traitée dans notre récent texte de CNN/Global Office.]
7) Marc's Election Explainer
********************************
B*) CNN/Global Office: Women
win the boardroom battle [Une enquête britannique montre les progrès
des femmes dans l'avancement de leurs carrières.]
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/09/15/go.women.boardroom/index.html
Women win the boardroom battle
By Nick Easen for CNN
Wednesday, September 22, 2004 Posted: 1659 GMT (0059 HKT)
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Bigger pay rises, higher average salaries and a fatter wage packet than the other gender -- this time it is happening to women rather than men. According to the latest survey of British workers, released on Wednesday, the gender gap in the office is narrowing. More women are at work than ever before and there is greater female influence at senior management level, as well as in the boardroom. The figures also show that more women are breaking through the so-called "glass ceiling" and creating a "boardroom greenhouse effect" as companies warm to the idea of women in management roles.
"Organizations are realizing you should not restrict roles because of gender," Mike Petrook from the Chartered Management Institute told CNN. "Certainly the glass ceiling is cracking and companies appreciate that they have to pay men and women equally at the boardroom level."
The survey of 21,987 British managers by the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) covered 10 different industries from manufacturing to the public sector. Managers in 354 companies from small enterprises to multinational firms were interviewed, as well as six different management functions from human resources to sales.
Over the last five years results show that the number of women directors has risen from less than one in 10 to one in seven. Female bosses are also getting bigger pay rises than men -- the eighth year in a row this has happened, with women seeing an average rise of five percent compared with men's 4.7 percent. At the department head level, women are also earning more than their male equivalents, with an average wage of £51,854 ($92,195) compared to £50,459 for men ($89,715). Almost a third of department managers are now women. Back in 1974 they accounted for only two percent.
The results also defy the belief of a "glass cliff" for women in the boardroom. A situation where women are more likely to be appointed to precarious positions , where they are more likely to fail. Researchers at Exeter University have shown that many FTSE 100 firms appointed women to senior positions only after a downturn in their fortunes, leaving them standing on the edge of a "glass cliff." "The (survey) shows that the "glass cliff" does not exist, all you have to do is look at the labor turnover figures," says Petrook.
The number of women resigning from their job decreased
from 6.4 percent in 2002 to 5.3 percent in 2004, whereas male resignations
jumped. More men (2.9 percent) than women (2.8 percent) were also made
redundant in the last 12 months. "But there is still a long way to
go if women are to achieve true parity in the workplace," says Christine
Hayhurst, CMI's director of professional affairs. "Huge efforts have
been made to work towards equality in the workplace and organisations
must continue to put measures in place to meet these demands." Hayhurst
believes that failure to ensure workplace equality could lead to more
discrimination cases.
********************************
3*) The Boston Globe: Harshness of red marks has students seeing purple
[Aux E-U, les profs n'utilisent plus l'encre rouge pour corriger
les devoirs, de peur d'effrayer les élèves sensibles. RETOUR
POUR UNE 3° SEMAINE !!!]
http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2004/08/23/harshness_of_red_marks_has_students_seeing_purple/
Harshness of red marks has students seeing purple
By Naomi Aoki, Globe Staff | August 23, 2004
When it comes to correcting papers and grading tests, purple is emerging as the new red.
"If you see a whole paper of red, it looks pretty frightening," said Sharon Carlson, a health and physical education teacher at John F. Kennedy Middle School in Northampton. "Purple stands out, but it doesn't look as scary as red." [Comment: how about studying harder so that you make fewer mistakes?]
That's the cue pen makers and office supply superstores say they have gotten from teachers as the $15 billion back-to-school retail season kicks off. They say focus groups and conversations with teachers have led them to conclude that a growing number of the nation's educators are switching to purple, a color they perceive as "friendlier" than red.
As a result, Paper Mate introduced purple to its assortment of blue, red, and green X-Tend pens and increased distribution of existing purple pens this school year. Barry Calpino, Paper Mate's vice president and general manager, estimated that the Bellwood, Ill., company boosted production of purple pens by at least 10 percent. He said purple will now be a standard color in all its new product lines.
Office superstores such as Staples and OfficeMax also are making a splash with purple pens, stocking more of them, adding purple to multicolor packs, and selling all-purple packs. By comparison, Staples did not stock any exclusively purple pen packs last year and it hardly had any purple pens in its stores two years ago, said Robert George, the Framingham chain's senior vice president of general merchandise. Now, he said, sales of purple pens are growing at a faster clip than pen sales overall.
A mix of red and blue, the color purple embodies red's sense of authority but also blue's association with serenity, making it a less negative and more constructive color for correcting student papers, color psychologists said. Purple calls attention to itself without being too aggressive. And because the color is linked to creativity and royalty, it is also more encouraging to students.
"The concept of purple as a replacement for red is a pretty good idea," said Leatrice Eiseman, director of the Pantone Color Institute in Carlstadt, N.J., and author of five books on color. "You soften the blow of red. Red is a bit over-the-top in its aggression."
For office supply stores, color and fashion trends spell opportunity and risk. The trends allow them to freshen up staid old categories such as pens and markers, fueling sales. But getting a trend wrong -- betting on purple pens when teachers and students are buying green, for example -- can cost them sales during a critical retail period.
Red's legacy as the color used in correcting papers and marking mistakes goes back to the 1700s, the era of the quill pen. In those days, red ink was used by clerks and accountants to correct ledgers. From there, it found its way into teachers' hands.
But two or three decades ago, an anti-red sentiment began surfacing among teachers. Since then, no one color had emerged as red's replacement.
Is purple here to stay?
"I do not use red," said Robin Slipakoff, who teaches second and third grades at Mirror Lake Elementary School in Plantation, Fla. "Red has a negative connotation, and we want to promote self-confidence. [Comment: even if they get everything wrong] I like purple. I use purple a lot."
Sheila Hanley, who teaches reading and writing to first- and second-graders at John F. Kennedy Elementary School in Randolph, said: "Red is definitely a no-no. But I don't know if purple is in."
Hanley said a growing contingent of her colleagues is using purple. They prefer it to green and yellow because it provides more contrast to the black or blue ink students are asked to write in. And they prefer it to orange, which they think is too similar to red.
But aside from avoiding red, Hanley said she is not sure color matters much. At times, she uses sticky notes rather than writing on a child's paper. [The horrors of pale yellow!!] What's important, she said, is to focus on how an assignment can be improved rather than on what is wrong with it, she said.
Ruslan Nedoruban, who is entering seventh grade at his Belmont school, said red markings on his papers make him feel "uncomfortable."
His mother, Victoria Nedoruban, who is taking classes to improve her English, said she thinks papers should be corrected in red.
"I hate red," she said. "But because I hate it, I want to work harder to make sure there isn't any red on my papers."
Red has other defenders. California high-school teacher Carol Jago, who has been working with students for more than 30 years, said she has no plans to stop using red. She said her students do not seem psychologically scarred by how she wields her pen. And if her students are mixing up "their," "there," and "they're," she wants to shock them into fixing the mistake.
"We need to be honest and forthright with students,"
Jago said. "Red is honest, direct, and to the point. I'm sending
the message, 'I care about you enough to care how you present yourself
to the outside world.' "
THE REGULARS
********************************
A) Le texte plus abordable de la semaine/Kidzworld:
All About the Great Lakes [Topo sur les Grands Lacs (c'est chez moi !!).]
http://www.kidzworld.com/site/p4899.htm
All About the Great Lakes
The Great Lakes are a group of five huge freshwater lakes between the United States and Canada. Here's the 411 [information] you need on the greatest lakes of all.
Great Lake - Lake Superior
Lake Superior is the largest freshwater lake in the world. It's 31,820
square miles (82,414 square km), 350 miles (563 km) long and 160 miles
(257 km) at its widest part. Lake Superior is bordered on the west by
Minnesota, on the north and east by Ontario, Canada, and on the south
by Michigan and Wisconsin. Lake Superior is also the deepest of the Great
Lakes; it's 1,302 feet (397 m) at it's deepest! Lake Superior drains into
Lake Huron through the St. Mary's River and receives the waters of many
small streams. The water in Lake Superior is generally less polluted than
the other Great Lakes - a US-Canadian pact was established to prevent
pollution in 1972.
Great Lake - Lake Erie
Lake Erie is the fourth largest (or second smallest) of the great lakes.
It's 9,940 square miles (25,745 square km), 241 miles (388 km) long and
57 miles (92 km) wide at its widest point. It's bordered on the north
by Ontario, Canada, on the east by New York, on the south by Pennsylvania
and Ohio, and on the west by Michigan. It is the shallowest of the Great
Lakes, with a maximum depth of 210 feet (64 m), making it the only one
with a floor above sea level. Lake Erie is part of the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence Seaway system and is linked to Lake Huron and to Lake Ontario
by the Niagara River, which is Lake Erie's only natural outlet.
Great Lake - Lake Huron
Lake Huron is the second largest of the Great Lakes. It's 23,010 square
miles (59,596 square km), 206 miles (332 km) long and 183 miles (295 km)
at its greatest width. Lake Huron sits between Ontario, Canada and Michigan.
At it's deepest, Lake Huron is 750 feet (229 m). Lake Huron receives the
waters of Lake Superior through the St. Mary's River and those of Lake
Michigan and drains into Lake Erie.
Great Lake - Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario is the smallest and lowest of the Great Lakes. It's 7,540
square miles (19,529 square km), 193 miles (311 km) long and 53 miles
(85 km) at its widest. Lake Superior sits between Ontario, Canada and
New York. Lake Ontario is mainly fed by the waters of Lake Erie, which
are transported via the Niagara River. Lake Ontario drains into the St.
Lawrence River.
Great Lake - Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan is the third largest of the Great Lakes and the only one
entirely within the United States. It's 22,178 square miles (57,441 square
km), 307 miles (494 km) long and 120 miles (193 km) at its widest point.
Lake Michigan is bordered by Michigan (duh), Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin.
The lake is 923 feet (281 m) deep. It's only natural outlet is the The
Straits of Mackinac, which connect the lake with Lake Huron. Many islands
are found in the northern part of the lake.
********************************
B) CNN/Global Office: Triumph roars back from
adversity [La renaissance des motos Triumph.]
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/09/30/casestudy.triumph/index.html
Triumph roars back from adversity
Thursday, September 30, 2004 Posted: 1217 GMT (2017
HKT)
LONDON, England (CNN) -- When the Triumph motorcycle company went bankrupt in 1983, it appeared only a matter of time before the legendary British marque disappeared from the roads. Based in the English Midlands, Triumph had built their first motorcycle in 1902, going on to become one of the biggest bike manufacturers in the world. With starring roles alongside Steve McQueen in "The Great Escape" and Marlon Brando in "The Wild One" and regular wins on the race track, Triumph bikes achieved iconic status.
Yet Triumph's glory days were a distant memory by the early 1980s. Out-powered and out-priced by Japanese manufacturers and struggling to sell a range of stale models, Triumph appeared to be living in the past and without a future. Even when John Bloor, a plasterer turned construction magnate with a passion for biking, put up $100,000 to save the company from the liquidator, it seemed that Triumph's survival had more to do with Bloor's desire to preserve a piece of motorcycling heritage than any prospect of turning it into a profitable business.
But Bloor had other ideas. "It was an opportunity to make money," he told CNN. "But it was more difficult than I anticipated." More than two decades later, however, Bloor's patient restoration work is finally starting to pay dividends. Earlier this year Triumph announced a 12-month sales increase of 22 percent, while sales of the company's top models doubled. The company also revealed it was aiming to increase sales by 25 percent every year until 2008. Currently building 30,000 bikes a year, Triumph has ambitions to raise that to 80,000.
With 650 employees, Triumph has come a long way since Bloor walked through the door to discover that, other than in name, very little of Triumph existed. The collapse of the British motorcycle industry meant that the company was manufacturing its own parts because there were no local suppliers left. Starting again with just four staff, Bloor decided that Triumph couldn't compete in the mass production market and instead focused on building a small, flexible and well-trained workforce that focused on quality engineering. "We've concentrated on that area," Bloor told CNN. "The area that we concentrated on first was to get our quality of design and manufacture right. Possibly we overkilled it a little, but I think it's paying now."
Bloor also looked to Japan to learn about making bikes. "We purchased the name in January. We went to Japan in June. By September we had scrapped everything. And we started afresh. There was nothing here that we could use for the future."
Re-born in 1990, Triumph's sales grew steadily, until a devastating factory fire in 2002 shut down production for five months at a cost of $95 million. Justa few years earlier such a scenario would have been calamitous, but under Bloor's management Triumph was quickly back on track again. And in July the company launched its most audacious bike yet -- the 2,300cc Rocket III.
Designed in response to customer demand for an Easy Rider-style cruising bike, the $21,000 Rocket III, which has the biggest engine in biking, is aimed squarely at the Harley-Davidson-dominated U.S. market. "Triumph just didn't have big bikes," commercial director Tue Mantoni told CNN. "We needed big bikes. At that point we didn't even have anything above 1,000cc. So they wanted a bike. They got a big bike. This is the biggest bike." Triumph's faith in their customers has been rewarded. The first 300 Rocket IIIs were sold long before they left the production line, and the waiting list to get hold of one now stretches into 2005.
Successful once again on the road, Triumph has also set its sights on a return to glory on the race track."Racing has been dominated by the Japanese for many, many years and they took over where the British were years ago," said Jack Valentine of the Triumph ValMoto team, which claimed its first victory in the British Supersport series earlier this month. "Hopefully we can get Triumph back at the top where they belong."
********************************
C) Slate/Dear Prudence: Hello, How Much Do You Weigh? [Conseils sur la
vie sentimentale et la vie tout court. Cette semaine : Est-ce que "T'as
maigri" a remplacé "Bonjour" comme salutation. /
Je ne sais pas me comporter face à un ami a un cancer inopérable.
/ Je viens d'apprendre que la dame que je fréquente m'a menti sur
son âge. /L'ex de mon mari veut que je l'invite à des rencontres
de famille.]
http://slate.msn.com/id/2106712/
Hello, How Much Do You Weigh?
When did "you've lost weight" replace "how are you"
as a greeting?
Posted Thursday, Sept. 30, 2004, at 5:13 AM PT
Dear Prudence,
I am 19 years old and a size 12—not obese, just naturally curvy.
A few months ago, I started eating better and must have lost a few pounds.
As a result, people keep telling me I've lost weight. I understand that
they mean this as compliment, and so I usually say "thank you"
and change the subject. However, I was wondering if there's some polite
way to convey that, while I appreciate the "compliment," I'm
perfectly happy with my curvy self. Also, when did "You've lost weight"
become a compliment? Wasn't there a time when losing a noticeable amount
of weight meant one was sick or malnourished? Just to clear up any confusion,
I started eating better not to lose weight but simply to fix my bad habit
of snacking on foods with no nutritional value while I still could. Thanks
for any advice you might have.
—Curvy and Confused
Dear Curv,
You make an interesting observation about "You've lost weight"
having become a compliment, if not a greeting. A good guess about when
this happened would be when fashion magazines began to feature sliver-thin
models, then some actresses followed suit, seeming to be in a competition
to see who could eat the least without keeling over. Thin became in, size
4 became a goal, and diets joined the zeitgeist. (And of course, historically,
fat people were the rich ones because they could afford the food. Now
that has totally reversed.) At this point, "You've lost weight"
has become just a friendly thing to say—accurate or not. There is
no need, by the way, to convey to people that you are happy with your
curvy self, or even to explain that you gave up cheese doodles in an effort
to simply eat more healthfully. And let's all remember that Marilyn Monroe
was plenty curvy herself.
—Prudie, comfortably
-*-*-
Dear Prudie,
I need some advice. A friend has recently found out that he has a terminal
cancer. I have dealt with family and friends in the past who have been
sick by talking openly with them and encouraging them to fight it and
never give in. But none of them have been terminal, and there was always
hope for them … which is not so in this case. I am at a complete
loss as to how to act around this man or what to say to him. Your advice
would be really appreciated.
—Sincerely,
Dave
Dear Dave,
This is the kind of situation where you must take the cues from the person
who is ill. When you visit, listen to how he talks about his illness—IF
he talks about it at all. People respond differently to life-and-death
possibilities. Some get comfort from speaking openly and honestly about
the chance they might not make it; others may entertain those thoughts
privately but don't wish to have a dialogue about it. Some patients need
to be in denial about what's going on while others want someone to talk
to about their fear of dying or their acceptance of the situation. So
the bottom line answer to your question would probably be to be sensitive
and to follow the lead of your friend. It would be a failure of friendship
to insist to someone who is trying to come to terms with a fatal illness
that he'll get better if he only has positive thoughts.
—Prudie, palliatively
-*-*-
Dear Pru,
I recently met a woman, and I've really enjoyed our conversations and
time together. Although I have only been out on a half-dozen dates with
her, I felt like I knew her pretty well and that I could trust her. Last
night, we were having a conversation, and I said that most of my friends
in their mid-30s are usually settling down, buying houses, and having
families. She then said, "How old do you think I am?" I then
said, "About my age?" I am 28 years old, and it turns out she
is 32. I am not bothered by the fact that she is older than me, but when
I met her, she told me she was 26. Can I trust her? Is lying about age
something that all women do? And should I worry that she is lying about
things other than her age as well?
—Mr. X
Dear Mr.,
Lying about one's age is, forgive the expression, an age-old practice
if one is a woman. Not all women do this, but many do. Historically, it's
been rude to ask a woman her age, but when "modern ways" took
hold, it became a non-issue—but only for some women. The late Ruth
Gordon, a wonderful actress, used to add to her age and lie UP, explaining
that when you did this, people's response was, "Honey, you look so
great!" Prudie happens to always tell the truth. (She is 18 Celsius.)
As for your young woman, try to exempt the age issue from your truth and
trust test. Fudging about one's age is generally considered a side issue
to general truthfulness. And she did, after all, cough up the six lost
years once you'd gotten to know each other.
—Prudie, forgivingly
-*-*-
Dear Prudence,
I would appreciate your take on a family situation. My husband and I have
invited his siblings and their families to a party at our house over a
holiday weekend. His family doesn't live near us, so they will be in town
for a few days. My husband's ex-wife is quite put out with me for not
inviting her to this party, or to a similar one we had last year for the
same group. She maintains that his family was hers, too, for almost 30
years, and that she should be invited to anything that we have that involves
them so she can visit and catch up with them. My husband's children are
all adults, and last year they came to the gathering and also made arrangements
to visit their mother along with their dad's family elsewhere. So my question
is: Am I the bad guy here by not including the ex in the party at our
house? I'm not especially fond of the woman, for various reasons, but
she seems to think that I have an obligation to allow her to see her ex's
family at my house.
—Thank You!
Elisabeth X
Dear El,
It is Prudie's great pleasure to tell you that, in this situation, the
current wife rules. You are not a bad person to choose not to include
the first Mrs. X in family gatherings. She is, after all, not part of
YOUR family. (For certain occasions, of course—like weddings—you
are stuck.) Your husband's kids did it just right last year when they
arranged a separate gathering. And if the ex wants to "visit and
catch up," she could always host her own gathering. Prudie is not
saying that a longtime ex should be cut loose from people who were her
in-laws for years, just that the current wife is by no means obligated
to entertain her. As you no doubt know, there are some "extended"
families where the exes are great friends … but yours is not one
of them. And for what it's worth, Prudie would rather roll around in a
clothes dryer than socialize with her husband's ex.
—Prudie, customarily
********************************
D) The Washington Post/Miss Manners: Knocked for a loop [Conseils sur
l'étiquette et les bonnes manières. Cette semaine : J'ai
du mal alors que je fais du porte-à-porte pour soutenir un candidat
aux prochaines élections. / Un homme a coupé la file au
buffet pour se servir, et en plus, avec ses mains.]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58376-2004Sep28.html
Knocked for a Loop
By Judith Martin
Wednesday, September 29, 2004; Page C11
Q:
Dear Miss Manners:
I am a high school student volunteering time to support a candidate for the U.S. Senate. The neighborhood I was assigned to canvass clearly subscribes to the opposing political ideology. Many a time, a door has been slammed in my face, or worse, derogatory comments made regarding my candidate or myself.
What has become of our democracy when opposing viewpoints
are met with abject ire?
Would you kindly do me the favor of suggesting several alternatives these good but misguided citizens could substitute while declining to entertain gently persuasive comments regarding a viewpoint other than their own?
A:
The only polite way to shut a door in someone's face is to say, "Sorry,
I'm not interested," preferably with a regretful smile, and to close
the door gently without having to hear the argument about why one should
be interested.
Miss Manners fears that this may be disappointing to you, primed as you are to articulate and defend your reasons for supporting your candidate. But you should remember that the time-honored custom of canvassing violates two everyday rules of etiquette: against invading the privacy of people's homes, and against challenging other people's politics.
This is not to say that you are wrong to do it, or that anyone is justified in being rude to you. It is just that you -- in common with religious proselytizers, traveling salesmen and collectors for charity -- must expect some irritation when you ring doorbells. Sadly, it is often rudely expressed.
Miss Manners agrees with you that political discourse is in a bad way, but not because there are people who have already made up their minds. You have.
-*-*-*-
Q: Dear Miss Manners:
My family had a special occasion in another city and stayed at an elegant hotel, thrilled with the luxury. When I arrived at the complimentary breakfast buffet, within a half-hour of closing, there were at least a dozen people in line.
When I got up to the food, plate in one hand and tongs in the other, a man who had not been in line darted in front of me and began to grab the cut fruit with his hands from the plate in front of me. I was so startled that I just stood there, agog at both the cutting in line and the barehanded grabbing.
Since the melon was slippery, he had some trouble and reached again and again. He then went on to snatch and grab at whatever he could reach of the other plates.
Finally, after a few minutes of this, I icily said, "Pardon me!" He looked somewhat surprised and left the line, plate full.
My question is whether I should have offered him the tongs, or continued to hold the tongs and not assist this behavior further? I feel that I was less than considerate, but I was really so shocked and appalled that I was almost frozen. I have only seen this type of behavior on TV in unfortunate situations such as starving refugee camps, but this fellow looked a lot more prosperous. What does one do when people act this way?
A:
Get out of the way.
********************************
THIS WEEK'S TEXTS
********************************
1) Ad Age: Marketers chase consumes into the
bathroom [Nouveau territoire des publicitaires : les WC.]
http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=41473#
MARKETERS CHASE CONSUMERS INTO THE BATHROOM
Inside the World of Toilet Stall Demographics
September 13, 2004
By Lisa Sanders
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) --
In the old days, the only "commercial" text normally found in toilet stalls and on urinal walls were those placed by anti-social cranks and hookers of various sexual orientations. Often using ballpoint pens as chisels, they scrawled phone numbers and crude taglines like "For a good time in Dallas, call..."
Elbowing in
But in recent years, marketers like Sony Music, Unilever and Nintendo
along with major liquor companies and TV networks have been systematically
elbowing aside the hookers and cranks to get their own commercial messages
in front of a demographic with its pants lowered and its zipper undone.
Deodorant brands, recording artists, video games and automakers are routinely buying space on the doors of toilet stalls or urinal walls. Meanwhile, other assorted "guerilla" media vendors offer condom packaging and urinal mats as relatively inexpensive messaging surfaces.
The venue offers an audience that is captive to its biological needs, said David Turner, president of the Indoor Billboard Advertising Association, founded in 1998. "In a restaurant, 75% of the patrons use the restrooms. In a bar or a nightclub, the average patron uses a restroom almost three times per stay."
The right demographics
When Sony Music launched country singer Gretchen Wilson this May, the
company's media plan included restroom advertisements in clubs and sports
venues including the Nashville Speedway and Gaylord Entertainment Center.
"The arena holds 50,000 people, watching football, drinking Cokes
and beers all day. They'll go to the bathroom possibly three times a day,"
said Margie Hunt, senior director of marketing for Sony Music Nashville.
"We knew Gretchen's music would appeal to lots of people who go to
the speedway. It is just a matter of getting the most impressions. We
look for the right demographics."
Packaged-goods giant Unilever has advertised its Axe deodorant in bathrooms since the product launched in the U.S. in August 2002. It is currently running restroom ads in 10 major U.S. markets.
Aimed at 18- to 25-year-old men, Axe is a brand that "is about helping a guy attract women," said David Rubin, senior brand development manager. "It is a social brand in that respect, and there's no place like a bar for guys to meet women." Axe's creative features "Pit Man," a visual oddity created by Bartle Bogle Hegarty in New York. The creature is composed of a hairy armpit and a foot.
"In a bar, he's much closer to our brand promise," Mr. Rubin said. "He's thinking about meeting someone, he's in the right mindset."
Though relatively small in size -- the Indoor Billboard Advertising Association estimates its North American revenues will reach $50 million this year, compared with the $5.5 billion spent on outdoor advertising -- advertising in restrooms in bars, restaurants, airports and shopping centers is on the rise, up 14% from 2003, which rose 12% over the year before. The group's members are 30 independent companies that sell space on "boards" in 200 markets in the U.S. and Canada. Marketers with the greatest increase year to date are women's apparel (48%). Marketers also like restrooms for cost and the ability to target consumers.
Campaign component
Most marketers include bathroom ads as just one component of a plan that
includes more traditional media, such as TV, print and outdoor. But for
certain audiences, advertising in bathrooms is the piece de resistance,
so to speak, of a campaign.
Nintendo achieved one of its most successful game
launches in 2001 when it introduced "Conker's Bad Fur Day."
Aimed to appeal to college-aged guys, Conker is a squirrel who, among
other things, drinks and urinates frequently. The media campaign included
Video Game character Conker is being promoted with branded splash mats
for urinals. However, one industry authority points out that selling such
campaigns is more difficult because of marketers' concerns about 'people
peeing on their ad creative.'
urinal mats, printed with the Conker URL, placed in men's bathrooms for
several months in major urban markets.
"Like Conker, our target's focus in on his social life. Being in bars is absolutely being in their element, and because urinating is part of game play, it made total sense," said Gina Broderick, associate media director at Starcom Worldwide, part of Publicis Groupe's Starcom MediaVest Group. Starcom handles Nintendo's media buying and planning.
In the first two weeks of the game's launch, Ms. Broderick said, the Conker Web site had 300,000 unique visitors. In its first month on the market, "Conker's Bad Fur Day" was the top-selling mature-rated video game for all systems, according to TRSTS, a tracking system conducted by NPD Group.
'Peeing on their ad creative'
To be sure, urinal mats aren't for every advertiser; in fact, GoGorillaMedia,
a New York vendor of guerilla media that produces message-laden tchotchkes
such as swizzle sticks, condoms and matchbooks for clients, said that
although many marketers inquire about urinal mats, few pony up the money
for a buy. "It is very difficult to get a client past the fact that
there'll be people peeing on their ad creative," said Joe Bonadio,
senior account manager. "It is a challenge."
But certain clients will venture into unusual media, such as electrically charged vinyl posters in bathrooms. (The electric charge causes the material to stick firmly to a glass surface.) Earlier this year, cable networks TBS's media buying agency, RET Media in Atlanta, used GoGorilla to post 1,350 charged 5-by-7-inch posters on bathroom mirrors around Los Angeles and New York City. Designed to lure viewers to reruns of Sex and the City, the message read: "Samantha. Richard Wright. Men's bathroom. Episode 87."
The packaging of condoms distributed in men's bathrooms has also become a hot advertising medium. Herc, a maker of a powder used in energy drinks, hired GoGorilla to produce a condom-package-based buzz marketing campaign. It featured creative taglines like "Play Harder" and "Keep it up." GoGorilla's senior account manager, Suzanne Hansen, said the message was "very specific to the medium." Echoed Axe's Mr. Rubin: "If you have the right creative, there's a lot of talk value" in bathroom advertising.
But even marketers who buy space in restrooms put a limit on the venue. "I wouldn't do graffiti advertising in a strip club," said Ms. Hunt of Sony Music Nashville. "I don't see [a bathroom] as a negative. We are careful about where we select to put these ads. Ours are right next to [the toilet stall posters of] eyecare physicians, finer lady's shops and health-care providers."
Even Ms. Broderick of Starcom Worldwide, responsible for the Conker urinal mats, agreed that "bathroom advertising comes with baggage: It is a bathroom. You really have to work with the humor of the fact that you are in the bathroom. The link between the message, the media and the target has to be at play."
While decrying the loss of the "good old days," when going to the bathroom allowed for privacy and a media-free zone, Robert Thompson, professor of popular culture at Syracuse University, looked on the bright side: "Maybe the benefit is that as bathrooms increasingly become a major place for advertising, we will all see cleaner public restrooms because advertisers will have a vested interest in keeping them that way."
^RETURN TO TOP^
********************************
2) The Los Angeles Times: King for a day in the geeky realm of televised
trivia [La journée d'un commentateur au jeu télé
Jeopardy (j'y ai joué à la version française !)]
http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-oe-seminer13apr13.story
COMMENTARY
King for a Day in the Geeky Realm of Televised Trivia
COMMENTARY
By David Seminer
I am a "Jeopardy" junkie. I have faithfully watched the TV game
show in all of its incarnations for the last 40 years, shouting out the
answers to the TV screen.
When I was in medical school, I would make up "Jeopardy"-style questions to help study for exams. I always felt I could be competitive on the show if only given a chance.
I am not alone. We Jeopardites are all around you — the Mr. Smarty Pants in your high school chemistry lab, the know-it-all on the debating team. For us, "Jeopardy" is the mecca of trivia — although the show's producers would prefer you to call it "acquired knowledge."
To the true believer, "Jeopardy" isn't just a game show. There is an Internet community of former contestants, aspirants and aficionados who meet daily to summarize, analyze, annotate and deconstruct each broadcast. Contestant responses are parsed and second-guessed. Every clue is scrutinized and decoded for internal consistency.
My day of destiny came in early January. It was the call — or as it's more reverently known among Jeopardites, the call. It was Bob, one of the contestant coordinators, asking if I would like to be on TV. Well yeah, about as much as I would like to continue breathing oxygen. This was a dream come true.
The road to an actual spot as a "Jeopardy" contestant is a difficult one. The process starts with a 50-question test of general knowledge read by Alex Trebek on video.
Candidates who pass the test are invited to stay to play a mock game against each other. This is followed by the all-important interview with the contestant coordinators.
The coordinators are looking for players with personality. In this area, I'm slightly challenged. I'm a neurologist, you see, and we are, as a group, not exactly the Robin Williamses of the medical profession. Unlike Elvis, when I leave the building, no one notices.
On two previous occasions, I had passed the written test and gotten as far as the interview stage. This time, I knew I needed a hook, something unique to get the staff's attention. I released my inner ham. "Oh, I do an impression of Elmer Fudd doing his impression of Ben Stein."
"Let's hear it." I did the shtick, and though I sound nothing like Fudd or Stein, they seemed impressed. The coordinator made a note of my special ability and I left feeling certain that I was in.
Then began the wait.
"What we anticipate seldom occurs," cautioned Disraeli. "The waiting," observed Tom Petty, no more comfortingly, "is the hardest part."
Which brings us to that fateful day in January when I passed my tests. Years of preparation didn't seem enough; I had to cram as much more information as possible into my brain. I turned to that great Bible of geekdom, the World Almanac.
I reviewed Sana, Agana, Havana, Manama — the world capitals that every "Jeopardy" contestant must know. Other categories that frequently appear are U.S. presidents, opera, Shakespeare, religions and literature. I tried to devote study time to each. Suddenly, I realized that I was going to be on national TV in front of millions of people and I didn't know diddly. When the actual day of the taping arrived, I woke in a cold sweat ("Cold Sweat" — For $200, who is James Brown?), dressed and drove to the studio where the other contestants were waiting anxiously.
We were taken to the actual set and played brief practice games — the main purpose of which was to familiarize us with the signaling devices. Often what separates champions from other players is the speed with which they can press their buzzers.
My name was picked at random to be in the second show of the day. Much of my memory of what happened after that is lost in the fog of competition.
I won the first game, dominated the second and got my clock cleaned in the third. In the last game, when I was beaten to the buzzer on a question about the brain, I knew I was cooked. But I was a "Jeopardy" champion. I was ecstatic.
The actual running time of a game is 22 minutes. If I was entitled to my 15 minutes of fame, then I've already overstayed my welcome.
It's time to move on. Or, as my wife implores, "If you could just channel that obsessive energy in a positive way, you might be able to do something really important, like bring peace to the Middle East." Who knows? It could happen. After all, sometimes dreams really do come true.
***
David Seminer is a neurologist in Sacramento.
********************************
3) The Ecomist: No way to run a democracy [Encore une analyse des dysfonctionnements
de la vie politique américaine.]
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3196241
American elections
No way to run a democracy
Sep 16th 2004
From The Economist print edition
The country's electoral machinery is badly in need of repair and a rethink
AMERICANS have a schizophrenic attitude to “American democracy”. On the one hand, many see democracy as a quintessentially American product—second only to that other elusive elixir, liberty. Both George Bush and John Kerry ended their speeches at their party conventions with hymns to their system of government.
Yet when it comes to their own elections, many Americans have their doubts. You may recall that small upset in Florida, of course; even if you accept that Mr Bush won the electoral college fairly, which by most measures he did, there is the awkward point that Al Gore won more votes. And other awkwardnesses remain. Why does barely half of the eligible electorate bother to vote? Why are so many people banned from voting? Why is this election so awash with corporate money and dominated by negative campaigning—typified by the Kerry-bashing Swift Boat veterans and the Bush-bashing Texans for Truth? Why are so many congressional districts such a very peculiar shape? Already there is the uncomfortable sight of lawyers massing in every swing state to dispute another election whose result may turn on faulty technology.
The machinery of America's democracy is creaking. That is not in most cases because there is anything fundamentally wrong with America's electoral system; rather it has to do with human error, laziness and, in the case of those gerrymandered districts, bipartisan corruption. Most of the solutions lie within the system. You can have the world's most vigorous democracy, but you still have to run it properly.
The fundamental things apply
Begin with a frank admission: there is no perfect voting system. Many of the supposed faults in the American system are not abuses, but the products of conscientious choice. Take the electoral college, with its tilt towards smaller states. If Mr Bush were to win the White House while losing the popular vote again, many Americans might consider scrapping the college; or more states might look at changing the winner-takes-all rule. Colorado is considering splitting its electoral-college votes in proportion to the votes cast (an idea which, if it spread, would make it worth Mr Bush's while to visit California and Mr Kerry's to visit Texas). If states decide to try this, fine. But they will not be mending American democracy; they will be choosing one voting system over another, as America has done throughout its history.
Or consider the most commonly voiced complaint of outsiders about American politics—that it is too full of money. In Europe, the state helps pay for campaigning and forces television networks to give time to parties; America prefers to keep elections, mostly, in the private sector. That increases the power of lobbyists (probably) and the noise from people's television sets (certainly); but it is also a more liberal system, and closer to the principle of free speech.
The real question is whether that system is being run particularly well. From a liberal standpoint, the American system ought surely to allow people to give as much money as they want, as long as the information is disclosed. Even after recent campaign-finance reform, the law puts too much onus on controlling how much money people can give to individual politicians, rather than revealing who gives what. Hence the absurdity of money being funnelled into quasi-partisan groups like the Swift Boat Veterans.
The tumult about the ads and the money will probably get louder; but the real problem with the mechanics of American elections lies in the areas where there is less noise. For instance, one reason why so few people vote in America is because many states make registration so complicated. Many states also ban convicted felons from voting for life—a contradiction of the sound principle that once a man has served his punishment, he can rejoin society. Even apparent enhancements of democracy, such as absentee voting, can end up harming it, if they are applied carelessly; the parties can use strong-arm tactics with absentee voters that would not be permitted near the ballot box itself (see article).
Machine politics
Out of all these creaking bits of machinery, two look particularly deadly. The first is those voting machines (see article). Despite being given a fistful of money by Congress, many American states have opted for dodgy electronic voting machines. Electronic machines generally look a good idea; but they must have a paper back-up, so that voters can check that their votes have been recorded correctly; and, crucially, so that officials can hand-count the ballots if there is a very close result or if a glitch emerges, as it will. In one recent Indiana contest, 5,352 voters somehow produced 144,000 votes.
The other great blot on American democracy—redistricting—has already made a nonsense of elections to Congress. Despite all the hoopla about the 50:50 nation, no more than around 30 seats of the 435 in the House of Representatives are competitive (see article). In 2002, four out of five congressmen won their races by more than 20 points. This is because most states allow their politicians to determine the boundaries. The result is gerrymandering on a grotesque scale, with incumbents stitching up safe seats by drawing absurd districts that look like doughnuts, sandwiches and Rorschach tests.
This is not just unfair; it puts people off voting (why bother in those 400 districts where the result is a foregone conclusion?) and it drives politics to the extremes. With no chance of being unseated by the other party, a congressman's only threat is the partisans in the primary; so Republicans become ever more conservative and Democrats ever more left-wing.
As with so many of the other abuses in American politics, it need not be that way. Just as some states have bought good voting machines, others have redrawn their electoral boundaries in a sensible way. Iowa, for instance, allows an independent commission to set them. Redistricting can be fixed—and it should be. America's devotion to the principle of democracy is admirable—but the principle could be far better honoured in the practice.
********************************
4) CNN/Management Masterclass: Hot to excite my team? [Conseils sur le
managment. Ici, comment motiver son personnel ?]
Management Masterclass
By Christine Hayhurst, Chartered Management Institute
Friday, September 10, 2004 Posted: 1609 GMT (0009 HKT)
Q: "My team appears to be jaded, despite the lull of activity over
the summer months. I've tried various ideas, but don't want to go down
the route of gimmicks to motivate them. So what can I do to create more
energy in our office?
A: The first thing you should know is that you're not alone. Research conducted by the Chartered Management Institute and Adecco earlier this year found that workplace energy levels are dropping dangerously low with more than a third of people complaining about a lack of energy.
It's easy to see why. After a period of inactivity it's always difficult to "kick start" oneself again, so a good place to start is with objectives -- reiterating those of the team, as opposed to individuals.
That way individuals will feel that they're part of something and be encouraged to "do their bit" to help each other succeed.
On this basis, then, you should also look at the activities your staff are engaging in. Are their tasks interesting and stretching? Are they fairly distributed or are you inclined to give specific jobs to specific people?
In other words, look at and address the workload of your staff. If you only delegate the mundane tasks you won't inspire motivation and if you only favor certain individuals with challenging tasks you will tire them out and create resentment amongst their colleagues.
So be inclusive and -- if it exists -- work towards removing the notion that input is all that counts. Tell your staff that it is possible to do a job well without being in the workplace for excessive hours.
Consider the way you communicate, too. These days it's too easy to rely on email, but so much can be lost in terms of tone when it comes to reading something on a screen. And remember, not all people are as attentive to emails as others are, so make sure you have multiple communication channels.
The key, then, is to ensure you are connecting with your team. Do you communicate regularly with them about what's happening in the organisation now? Are they made aware about what's coming up?
Do you tell them the good, as well as the bad, news? The golden rule is to be open, honest and timely with staff. Don't be selective in giving information and make sure you share news before they hear it elsewhere.
You may also wish to consider who does the communicating. If, for example, you have a weekly team meeting, perhaps you can rotate who chairs it. Not only will that provide variety, but it will help people develop presentation skills, too.
You're right to say that gimmicks aren't the answer. But it's also worth noting that, often, money isn't either. Many surveys in the last few months have shown people like to be thanked! Even David Brent in The Office was once heard to say "Be behind your staff 100 percent of the time." The only difference was his personal motivation! In his case it was because he admitted that "from there you can stab them in the back."
In yours, ensure that you demonstrate genuine appreciation because so long as you show individuals that they are not going unnoticed you can go a long way to encouraging and energizing them.
Ultimately career progression and organizational productivity are closely linked to an individual's energy levels and if people are not properly motivated they will be less inclined to give their best. The problem often lies in senior management believing one thing about levels of morale, when teams have vastly different experiences.
It's a fine balancing act to achieve, but it is possible and the rewards, in terms of staff and stakeholder satisfaction, are well worth it.
-- The Chartered Management Institute shapes and supports the managers of tomorrow, helping them deliver results in a dynamic world. With 74,000 individual members and 500 corporate members, the Institute helps set and raise standards in management, encouraging development to improve performance.
********************************
5) Fashion United: Wal-Mart And Matalan Said To Be Close To Takeover [Nouvelles
de la reprise de Matalan par Wal-Mart.]
http://www.fashionunited.co.uk/news/walmart.htm
Wal-Mart And Matalan Said To Be Close To Takeover
Senior Wal-Mart executives are said to have been in the UK over the past month and are understood be close to a final decision on whether to make a formal offer for discount retailer Matalan. Neither company has commented on the reported takeover.
Matalan has been seen as a potential takeover target for more than a year. The UK value clothing market has become increasingly tough, with the strong growth of the George clothing range, sold by Wal-Mart owned Asda, causing problems for many rivals. Market share figures from TNS leaked earlier this month showed that Asda's clothing sales had overtaken those of Marks & Spencer.
Asda has announced plans for a trial of a non-food general merchandise format which will sell clothing, jewellery, homeware, toys and electricals. The first store opens in Walsall this autumn, and most of Matalan's 178 outlet would be suitable for this format. However, Wal-Mart would need new planning consents to sell food at any of the stores.
The key to any sale of Matalan is founder and 52 per cent shareholder John Hargreaves. Matalan currently has a market value of around GBP840m, but Hargreaves would almost certainly expect a premium for the business, hence the GBP 1bn level at which Wal-Mart is reported to be considering its bid.
Matalan is due to issue a pre-close trading statement later this week, In July, the company said it had reversed a like-for-like sales decline, with like-for-likes up by 4.1 per cent in the 18 weeks to July 3. Total volume growth across the 18 weeks was 12.4 per cent, but average selling price declined by 8.3 per cent, reflecting the level of competition in the market.
Meanwhile, Wal-Mart has started to see a slowdown in comparable sales growth in its US stores, creating a new impetus for the retailer to increase its international expansion programme.
www.walmart.com
>> more Matalan on FashionUnited
30 August 2004
********************************
6) The Economist: The global business environment [Le regard de The Economist
sur le même rapport de la Banque mondiale traitée dans notre
récent texte de CNN/Global Office.]
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3178693
The global business environment: Measure first, then cut
Sep 9th 2004 | LUANDA
A new study shows that bad regulations are a huge brake on global growth.
But reforming or repealing them is easier than you think
“MONEY, money, money. What a lot of money you have,” smirked the Angolan policeman, as he rifled through your correspondent's wallet, money-belt and pockets. He kept all the local currency he found, without issuing a receipt. This encounter took place last week, in broad daylight in the main airport in Luanda, Angola's capital. What was striking about it was not that Angolan officials rob people, but that the country's regulations practically ensure that they will.
Angola forbids the export of its banknotes, though they are worthless outside its borders. The polícia fiscal man a pair of frosted-glass cubicles at the airport (one for men, one for women), where travellers must queue to be frisked. The ordeal hardly inspires confidence in the government's much-touted anti-corruption drive.
Pointless regulations foster graft. The more irksome the rule, the greater the incentive to bribe officials not to enforce it. An excellent new study by the World Bank, “Doing Business in 2005”, shows that red tape is one of the chief obstacles to growth in almost all poor countries.
In Haiti, for example, it takes 203 days to register a new company, which is 201 days longer than in Australia. In Sierra Leone, it costs 1,268% of average annual income per person, compared with nothing in Denmark. To register in Ethiopia, a would-be entrepreneur must deposit the equivalent of 18 years' average income in a bank account, which is then frozen. That such capital requirements are unnecessary has been amply proven in the 42 mostly rich countries that have abolished them.
Once incorporated, a firm may want to buy land upon which to build a factory. In Lagos, Nigeria's commercial capital, recording a property sale involves 21 procedures and takes 274 days. Official fees amount to 27% of the value of the transaction. In Norway, the task takes less than a day and costs only 2.5% of the price of the property. Land in Nigeria, unsurprisingly, tends to be traded informally. Its owners typically cannot prove, legally, that they own it, so it is useless as collateral.
Overall, businesses in poor countries shoulder three times the administrative costs and have to struggle through twice as many bureaucratic procedures as their counterparts in rich countries. A popular myth holds that this does not matter, because the rules in poor countries are rarely enforced. Not so. Because it is so hard to obey all the rules, businesses in poor countries tend to remain informal. That is, they remain outside the law and pay no taxes. They stay small to avoid detection. They cannot raise credit from the formal banking system in any case.
Governments often try to make their people richer by fiat, for example by ordering firms to pay their workers more. This rarely works as intended. Minimum-wage laws, if set too high, destroy jobs. Poor countries, which tend to have the most unrealistic labour standards, accordingly suffer the most unintended consequences.
Licensed to fail
In Burkina Faso, for instance, night and weekend work are forbidden, and the minimum wage is 82% of the average value-added per worker. To sack someone, an employer must first re-train him, place him in another job and pay him a lump sum equivalent to 18 months' wages. This is one reason why more than 90% of Burkinabes are still peasants. In such an arid and infertile country, this is not much fun.
Rules aimed at protecting vulnerable groups, such as women, often do the opposite. In Turkey, women who marry are allowed a year to decide whether to quit their jobs. If they go, their employers must give them a large severance package. So firms hire men: only 16% of Turkish women have formal jobs.
Poor countries may have lots of rules that “protect” workers, but they tend to lack credible systems for protecting property rights. Using the unhurried courts in Guatemala, for example, it takes on average 1,459 days to force a debtor to pay up, compared with 48 days in the Netherlands. In 12 countries, it would cost more to recoup a typical debt than was originally owed. Guess how easy it is to borrow money in such places. On a variety of measures, the report reckons that people and firms in poor countries enjoy only half as much protection of their property rights as those in rich countries.
Fortunately, regulations are not carved in stone. Simply by measuring the burden they impose, the World Bank has encouraged reform. “Doing Business in 2005” is the second of an annual series. Since the first report was published last year, 58 of the 145 countries in the sample have made doing business significantly easier.
Progress has been uneven, however. Europe improved the most. Seven of the top ten reformers were either new EU members, which had to shape up to join the club, or old ones, which had to shape up to compete with the new entrants. In poor countries, where deregulation is far more urgent, there was far less of it. Fewer than a third of poor countries adopted reforms, although the picture was distorted by the fact that Africa, with its many small countries, scored abysmally. Populous India did much better, as did Colombia.
Laggards sometimes argue that reforms would be difficult and costly to enact. But what could be simpler than scrapping a stupid rule? Simplifying procedures is harder, but not too hard. There are plenty of examples to learn from, and the World Bank estimates that the benefits of the reforms it advocates are 25 times the costs.
In the worst-regulated countries, the first steps are often obvious. Until last year, for example, registering a business in Ethiopia required, in addition to putting up lots of capital, publishing costly notices in two newspapers. The government solved this problem by simply abolishing the rule. The cost of registration plummeted from nearly five years' average income per person to nine months'. The number of new businesses registered shot up by half.
The World Bank estimates that if a country in the worst-regulated quartile were to join the best quartile, it would boost its annual growth rate by 2.2 percentage points. In other words, there is probably much more to gain from slashing red tape than from begging for more aid, especially since donors, unlike air travellers in Angola, are not exactly queuing up to open their wallets.
7) Marc's Election Explainer
Things to remember about American elections.
Americans vote on everything. Everything. On the first Tuesday of November each year, they vote on dozens of matters, from the members of the local animal control board, to the sewer commission, to the sheriff, to the school board, to… well you get the picture. They vote for local offices, state offices, and federal offices. They may vote on millage (school tax), on any number of local or state initiatives or proposals, and about anything else you can imagine. Each ballot may be made up of dozens of lines, each calling for a decision.
One reason for this is America's federal system of government, the product of the failure of the first attempt at national government, the Articles of Confederation (established in 1777, soon after the US Declaration of Independence, but only ratified in 1781). Under the Articles of Confederation, the thirteen original States retained most of their sovereignty, with a very weak central government. Given the failure of this form of government to deal with relations between the US and other countries, and more importantly among the various States, it was decided in 1787 to reform the Articles of Confederation. As is often the case, instead of modifying the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Congress decided to start from scratch, inventing a new form of government embodied in the Constitution that has continued to be the law of the land since its ratification in 1788.
The Constitution is the result of these historical tensions between the various States and the central government, between the North and the South, between the interests of the commercial and industrial cities and the agricultural countryside, between small States and large States. Each of these tensions led to various compromises without which the Constitution would never have been written and ratified, and without which the United States would probably not exist today. For example, the issue of the balance of power between small and large States was settled by the division of the legislature into two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate protects the interests of small States, as each State is represented by two Senators, giving each State equal weight. The House of Representatives, on the other hand, reflects the balance of population, with each State entitled to a number of Representatives proportionate to its population. The approval of both houses is required to make a law, and each house has specific powers (taxation bills must be initiated by the House of Representatives, the Senate must approve the President's nominations for federal and Supreme Court judges, for members of the Cabinet, and for other offices).
The issue of slavery was a source of contestation from the very beginning of the country. In terms of representation, the southern States wanted their slaves to be counted as part of the population. The North refused to grant representation on the basis of slaves who had no status as citizens. With slaves counting, the population of the South would have been greater than that of the North. Without slaves counting, the opposite would have been true. The compromise, known as the "3/5 Compromise" was to count each slave as 3/5 of a free citizen for purposes of representation. The result appeared and appears shocking, but gave a balance in electoral weight between North and South without which the Constitution could not have existed.
The Americans had just fought a long war for freedom from tyranny, and were very concerned with safeguarding their sovereignty and rights, both the rights of individuals to be protected from government, and from the States to be protected from the central government. The Constitution established a balance of powers between the legislature (itself divided between Senate and House of Representatives), the executive branch (President) and to a lesser degree, the judiciary (the Supreme Court and the federal court system). The Constitution gives only certain powers to the federal government, with all remaining powers retained by the sovereign States (the historical trend has been to find justification within the Constitution for a progressive increase in the power of the federal government that the writers of the Constitution would probably not approve of).
The Constitution deals mostly with the relations between the States and the federal government, and we can see this in the elections for national office. Each State is the master of these elections, and it can be said that there are in fact no national elections in the US. The most extreme example of this is the Presidential election, in which the popular vote across the country has absolutely no importance for the designation of the President. In the beginning, the legislature of each State, and not the people of the State, would vote on the presidential candidates. Although the vote is now in the hands of the people, the tradition remains that the vote in each State determines the vote for the entire State. This is translated to the presidential election through the Electoral College, in which each State has a number of Electors equal to the number of Senators and Representatives of the State. Each State thus designates all of its electors for only one candidate, meaning that even a small majority for a particular candidate results in that candidate winning all of the Electors of the State (there are only two exceptions to this, Maine and Nebraska, which divide their Electors on a geographical basis).
While there were originally logistical reasons for the creation of the Electoral College, given the long distances and the difficulties of transportation and communication in early America, the primary reason for creating such a means of electing the President was to translate two of the historic Constitutional compromises from the legislative to the executive branch. Small States are over-represented, as they benefit automatically from two Electors (the number of Senators), along with a number of Electors proportionate to its population (number of Representatives). A small State like Wyoming, for example, has only one Representative, but has three times the number of Electors it population would warrant (1 Representative + 2 Senators = 3 Electors). Likewise, thanks to the attribution of Electors on the basis of the number of Representatives, the 3/5 Compromise can be found in the Presidential election. (Thomas Jefferson, the third President, was the first to benefit from this, as he was elected with a majority of Electors from slave States, despite losing the popular vote by a significant majority.) It must of course be noted that the 3/5 Compromise is no longer in effect (slavery was abolished thanks to the victory of the North in the Civil War in 1865), but the Electoral College can be seen as a sort of constitutional fossil remains of this measure.
Each State is in charge of its own elections, including the Presidential election by which each State designates its list of Electors to the Electoral College. In general, the officer in charge of elections in each State is the Secretary of State, who in some States is named by the Governor, and in others is directly elected. A great deal of authority and responsibility is given to lower levels of government. In some States, the counties are in charge of the organization of elections. As a result, there can be different methods of voting even within a given State. The great number of elections held on the same day (dozens in most places) means that some sort of automation is desirable. Various solutions have been adopted: mechanical machines, optical card readers, punch cards, and now, touch-screen electronic voting machines. As you may have seen in some of the articles I have sent over the last year, these machines are a source of great concern, due to their lack of security (easy to hack), their ability to be tampered with ("trafiquer"), and the refusal of manufacturers to include basic safeguards such as a paper copy of the vote.
With regard to the presidential election, each State totals its vote, and the candidate receiving the majority (absolute or simple) receives all the Electoral College votes for the State (except in Maine and Nebraska, where the votes can be divided; there is currently a referendum scheduled to do the same in Colorado). As a result, the presence of a strong third party candidate can mean that a presidential candidate receives all the State's Electoral College votes without winning an absolute majority of the popular vote. In practice, these Electoral College votes are people who are proposed by each candidate or party. If the candidate wins the popular vote in a State, his list in that State becomes the official list for the State. It is possible for an Elector not to vote as he has promised to vote, but this is rare, and in certain States such a betrayal can be punished by law. The Electors transmit their votes in January, and the President elected by the Electoral College takes office on January 25. The period between the election in early November and the inauguration of the new President serves as a transition period for the establishment of a new administration.
We usually hear only about the candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties, but in each presidential election there are many more who get little attention, and few votes. It is not easy to be present on ballots across the country, and each State has its own rules on who can be present as a candidate. Established parties have a great advantage as their past performance gives them automatic representation. Candidates running as individuals or for small parties can have much more difficulty being present in each State. There are currently battles throughout the US concerning the presence of Ralph Nader on ballots, with the Republicans providing financial and logistical help for Nader who is certain to take votes from Kerry, and with the Democrats opposing his presence in the Courts (this strategy doesn't always work, as in Florida, where Governor Jeb Bush, the brother of George W, has overrode a court decision barring Nader from the ballot due to irregularities in his petitions).
The country is divided almost 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans, but in most states the outcome is clear. The result is that the candidates concentrate their campaigns on a few "swing" states that could go either way. Because of this division, the outcome of the election is hard to determine, and the presence of a strong independent or third-party candidate like Nader can have a big impact.
---
President: Elected every four years by the Electoral College. Presidents can serve two terms.
Vice-President: Elected with the President. Presides the Senate. Replaces the President in case of death or removal from office. If he serves more than two years of the President's term, he is limited to only one more term.
Senators: Two from each State. Elected for a six-year term by the entire population of each State. Each two years a third of the Senate comes up for election.
Representatives: Since 1911 the number of Representatives has been set
at 435. These seats are apportioned according to the population of each
State. Each State is divided into a number of districts equal to its number
of Representatives (one for small States like Alaska or Wyoming, dozens
for big States like New York or California). These districts have nothing
to do with geographical considerations, and everything to do with ensuring
that the party that controls the State legislature has the best chance
of winning the greatest number of seats. All Representatives serve a two-year
term, so they are perpetual candidates.