Jim Bunning, (R-KY) Has Bad Taste

Jim Bunning (R-KY) spoke out about Ruth Bader Ginzberg’™s cancer this weekend, actually predicting he imminent death. There is no excuse for a grown man being so crass. But he is a Republican, and there are many examples of such ugly behavior from that side of the aisle, so many that this should not surprise us one bit.

Commentary By: Steven Reynolds

I’™m willing to say it, that a comment implying anyone is dying soon is in very poor taste. That’™s what he said Saturday at the Hardin County Republican Party’™s Lincoln Day Dinner. Evidently predicting the death of someone he doesn’™t care for. . . he knows yhat will plat to his base? From the Louisville Courier Jounal:

U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning predicted over the weekend that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would likely be dead from pancreatic cancer within nine months.

During a wide-ranging 30-minute speech on Saturday at the Hardin County Republican Party’™s Lincoln Day Dinner, Bunning said he supports conservative judges ‘œand that’™s going to be in place very shortly because Ruth Bader Ginsburg ‘¦ has cancer.’

‘œBad cancer. The kind that you don’™t get better from,’

Friday, August 5th, 2011 by Richard Blair |

$350,000 Bonus Weeks Before Bankruptcy

Brian Tierney, CEO of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News, was awarded $350,000 in bonuses despite already planning to take the company into bankruptcy. Most of us would have problems with this, and his creditors appear to agree with us. But it is par for the course, a Republican rewarded for incompetency, isn’t it?


Commentary By: Steven Reynolds

Brian Tierny, CEO of the Philadelphia Inqurier has surely been trying hard to revive his small piece of the failing newspaper industry, Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., the parent corporation that publishes the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News. Heck, Brian has brought in insipid and failed Republican shills like Rick Santorum to write columns on the OpEd page, and he’s placed advertisements on the front page. The ad campaign for the papers boasts of the huge savings one can get from coupons rather than the fine reporting that used to be the core of the paper. Meanwhile, the reporters who are responsible for that fine reporting, are ever in danger of layoffs.

It turns out that just a couple of weeks before Brian Tierney took the company into bankruptcy he accepted a bonus for his stellar efforts. From Editor and Publisher:

The company filed for bankruptcy in February, citing $395 million in debt, much stemming from the 2006 purchase by a group of local investors led by Tierney.

The newspaper company recently lowered its 2009 income projections from $25 million to about $10 million before taxes, interest and other expenses.

Nonetheless, the company in a court filing defended $1.34 million in bonuses paid to 45 employees at the end of 2008, shortly before the Feb. 22 bankruptcy petition. The filing did not specify the amount of Tierney’s bonus, but published reports have put it at $350,000, on top of his $518,000 salary.

Let’s see. In 2006 money was easy to be had, so Brian Tierney, in all his forward-thinking wisdom, brought together investors who leveraged themselves in order to buy the paper from McClatchy, which had recently acquired the paper in its takeover of Knight Ridder. Times change. The newspaper industry may just be going the way of the buggy whip, as John McCain might say. Of course, the lenders owed money by PNI are not all that happy with Brian Tierney, as reported, honestly, it seems, by his own Philadelphia Inquirer, complete with Tierney’s whiney defense:

Tierney said he was looking forward to testifying on the taping and the lenders’ charges that he was enriching himself with raises and bonuses despite the company’s financial distress.

The lenders said in a court filing that Tierney “has used the debtors’ assets to further his own self interests.. . .”

Tierney said the major creditors had sought to retain him as CEO and offered him generous compensation if he instituted their restructuring plans.

“They offered me $2.5 million in equity value . . . up front,” Tierney said. He said they also offered him an additional $1.2 million in salary and bonus, that would bring the entire package to $3.7 million.

“This is what I will testify under oath next week,” he said. “I have it in writing. I rejected this. This is why it’s so disingenuous for them to say they’re upset.”

The bottom line for me is that if a company is failing so much that it is headed for bankruptcy protection, handing out bonuses for strong performance is idiotic. Of course, it is possible these are not bonuses for strong performance, but bonuses negotiated by Tierney that kick in no matter his performance. It isn’t like a Republican shouldn’t be rewarded for his incompetence, after all.

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009 by Steven Reynolds |

Dear AIG-FP Sr. Vice President Jake DeSantis

An AIG executive is a bit upset, because he feels that he (and other high level execs at AIG) are being hung out to dry by CEO Edward Liddy in the interest of political expediency.

Commentary By: Richard Blair

Dear Mr. DeSantis:

I read your resignation letter to AIG CEO Edward Liddy, which was published in the New York Times on my birthday, 3/24/2009. Having just turned 55, and being currently unemployed and living check to check, I thought you might be interested in my reaction.

The sense of entitlement that you express is absolutely astounding, and beyond the logical comprehension of a lifelong prole such as myself. You state:

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid…

Excuse me if I don’t choke up with sympathy, Mr. DeSantis. I have no doubt that during your “11 years of dedicated, honorable service”, you were very handsomely rewarded for your efforts, both in salary and past bonuses. I haven’t even googled your name, but I imagine that you live in a very nice home in a prestigious zip code, and that you hold title to at least one or two other vacation homes in equally toney neighborhoods. You probably drive multiple high end, imported vehicles, have multiple tax-sheltered bank accounts and financial instruments, and have never had to make the choice between feeding your family or paying the electric bill or cutting your pills in half to stretch out a medication prescription. It’s probably also safe to assume that you have a hired staff to attend to your family’s many needs and routine, mundane household chores.

So when you say:

I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut…

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house…

… I have to conclude that my personal sense of outrage over the bonus that you (and your fellow AIG executives) were scheduled to receive was justified. It’s crystal clear that you are disconnected from the social and political reality around you. The gravy train has been running on time for years, but by all appearances, when it ran off the tracks in 2008 your company continued to try and grease the rails for AIG executives who were already riding in first class.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans (including me) who were working as hourly wage slaves or in minimally salaried supervisory roles lost their jobs because of the recklessness of companies like AIG. So now, you resign and whine to your CEO via an editorial in the New York Times?

I’m sorry, but I just can’t feel the love for ya, Jake. As I try to figure out how I’m going to make it to next week, my sympathy meter just isn’t moving in your direction.

If you feel I’m alone in my lack of compassion for your situation, you might want to check out political cartoonist David Rees’ opinion:

Pay me $700,000 a year, or however much the AIG guy whining in today’s New York Times made, and you can threaten me with death all goddamn day. Because do you have any idea how much money that is??? Hell, I’ll let you throw rocks at me. I’ll let you poison my soup. You can slash my tires and spray-paint my driveway. AND ONCE I GET ALL THAT MONEY, I’M TOTALLY PAYING OFF SOME STUDENT LOANS AND FIXING THE GARAGE ROOF AND BUYING SOME NEW PANTS. Because that’s an insane amount of money.

I know, I know, Jake. It’s sad. To folks like you, $700,000 is chump change that can be given away in a fit of angst, and then reclaimed next April as a tax deduction. The unwashed (such as Mr. Rees or myself) just don’t understand. Perhaps you could do a little house shopping in Florida this weekend to sooth your wounded soul.

At the end of the day, though, I thank you for bringing the plight of the perceived injustice you’ve experienced to our collective attention, and I wish you luck in your job search. Sorry I have to cut this short, but maybe I’ll see you down at the local Wal-Mart and we can further discuss your anger. I hear they’re hiring part time stocking help for the night shift, and I need to rush out and get in the application line.

Best regards,

Richard Blair

Thursday, March 26th, 2009 by Richard Blair |

What a Trillion Dollars Looks Like

This is pretty freakin’ awesome…

Commentary By: Richard Blair

I’m an old warehouse hand, so I can wrap my head around the concept of pallets. You probably can, too. A full pallet is approximately 4–² X 4–² X 4–².

All this talk about “stimulus packages” and “bailouts”…

A billion dollars…

A hundred billion dollars…

Eight hundred billion dollars…

One TRILLION dollars…

What does that look like? I mean, these various numbers are tossed around like so many doggie treats, so I thought I’d take Google Sketchup out for a test drive and try to get a sense of what exactly a trillion dollars looks like

(h/t PhillyBits, via twitter…)

Saturday, March 21st, 2009 by Richard Blair |

AIG and Goldman Sachs – How We Got Here from There

How screwed are we? It’s worse than you think…

Commentary By: Richard Blair

Following my long week of dogging the AIG executive bonus issues, I had planned to spend this day unwinding a little bit. Those plans were made before I spent the morning reading (and digesting) Matt Taibbi’s latest Rolling Stone piece, The Big Takeover.

It’ll take you awhile to read through the article, but after you’re finished, I promise you that you’ll have a better handle on the depth of the financial crisis this country is facing, why Fed chief Ben Bernanke is full of shit when he says “we’ll see the recession coming to an end probably this year”, and who the major players were that got us into this mess.

Here’s your “Marie Antoinette moment” from Taibbi’s investigation:

“We, uh, needed to keep these highly expert people in their seats,” AIG spokeswoman Christina Pretto says to me in early February.

“But didn’t these –highly expert people’ basically destroy your company?” I ask.

Pretto protests, says this isn’t fair. The employees at AIGFP have already taken pay cuts, she says. Not retaining them would dilute the value of the company even further, make it harder to wrap up the unit’s operations in an orderly fashion.

The bonuses are a nice comic touch highlighting one of the more outrageous tangents of the bailout age, namely the fact that, even with the planet in flames, some members of the Wall Street class can’t even get used to the tragedy of having to fly coach. “These people need their trips to Baja, their spa treatments, their hand jobs,” says an official involved in the AIG bailout, a serious look on his face, apparently not even half-kidding. “They don’t function well without them.” [emphasis mine]

Basically, Taibbi says, we’re screwed.

The financial future of this country rests in the hands of a very few people who, ultimately, were at least partly responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place: Bernanke and Geithner, along with their ex-Goldman Sachs minions.

After reading Taibbi’s lengthy piece, it’s clear that there is absolutely no accountability for the strategies that have been put in place to solve the problems. Congress can hold all of the hearings that it desires, but neither Geithner nor Bernanke (or the unilateral policies of Treasury or the Fed) are answerable to congressional oversight.

If, as AIG CEO Edward Liddy claimed on Wednesday, AIG execs who received bonuses are really paying them back, it’s not necessarily because they’re trying to stave off the Marie Antoinette moment that’s at hand (although that could certainly be a motivator), but because whatever bonus money they’re now receiving is literally WAM – walking around money – for these execs. Their bank accounts are already fat from spending your money at the Wall Street casino, and $2 or $3 or $6 million extra dollars just doesn’t mean that much to them.

And no, there aren’t going to be any scraps left at the table for you at the end of the day.

Update: Greenwald puts some wood on this one and hits it out of the park. And confidential to Joe Nocera: your douchebaggery is showing.

Saturday, March 21st, 2009 by Richard Blair |

AIG Loses Some Cover in Court Decision

The story gets worse for AIG, with Andrew Cuomo getting a New York Supreme Court ruling which will back his subpoena of the other day. Meanwhile, we’re not focusing on the real issue across the business world, that marketing trumped core business principles. AIG offered new insurance products that weren’t properly vetted. We need to bring the guys in green eyeshades back.


Commentary By: Steven Reynolds

Richard wrote the other day about Andrew Cuomo demanding the names of those receiving bonuses at AIG. Heck, those bonuses, presumably claimed for “merit” at a company that received 182 Billion in bailouts – they’re today’s biggest story. AIG’s Chairman and CEO Edward Liddy made a complete hash of his testimony yesterday, claiming the performance bonuses are legitimate, but also saying he’d asked his executives to give some of the money back. Ludicrous reasoning there, and while it has been reported, the media seems to have given Liddy a pass. Certainly GOP Chair Rush Limbaugh is defending Edward Liddy and those bonuses, and many of the rest of the Republicans are dishonestly blaming Christopher Dodd.

Let’s get this straight. It is very simple. AIG performed miserably last year with the highest quarterly loss in the last quarter ever seen in the history of business. They performed so miserably they needed a bailout, a fucking HUGE bailout. That someone at AIG thought it was OK to give out bonuses is a sign of just why AIG hit the Guiness Book of World Records under the category of quarterly losses – they’re making stupid business decisions.

Hey, and here’s another stupid business decision. They blew off New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo when he asked for a list of the names of those who were raking in the bonuses. It doesn’t do to get Andrew Cuomo mad. And yesterday Andrew Cuomo got a court decision that helps him in investigating AIG. Remember when he asked for details on those last minute Merrill Lynch bonuses and Bank of America, new owner of the failed Merrill Lynch, told Cuomo to take a hike? Well, New York State Supreme Court Judge Bernard Fried has ruled and forced Bank of America to comply. From ABC News:

Attorney General of New York Andrew Cuomo took Bank of America to court to force them to reveal the information, after the bank said it was proprietary. But Wednesday New York State Supreme Court Judge Bernard Fried denied Bank of America’s motion to keep the names secret saying the Attorney General of New York has the “authority to decide whether the information he gathers as part of his investigation should be kept secret or public.”

Wednesday’s decision could set a precedent on the issue of revealing bonus details to the public. Cuomo has also subpoenaed AIG to reveal the names and amounts of the controversial bonuses issued late last week to members of their Financial Products division, blamed for the insurance company’s disastrous losses in 2008.

“Today’s decision in the Bank of America case is a victory for taxpayers. Let the sun shine in. Justice Fried’s decision will now lift the shroud of secrecy surrounding the $3.6 billion in premature bonuses Merrill Lynch rushed out in early December,” said Cuomo following the decision.

“Bank of America chose litigation over transparency and we are gratified that this tactic has failed. AIG should take heed and immediately turn over the list of bonus recipients we have subpoenaed. The deadline for responding to our subpoena is tomorrow. More litigation is not the answer – it is time for AIG to come clean,” he warned.

AIG is certainly going to have to attend to Cuomo now. Whether Cuomo has a legal case is another matter. Still, AIG and the marketing of insurance products needs to be exposed probably more than those bonuses. It appears they did little in the way of investigatng the risks involved in insuring sub-prime mortgage backed securities, an investigation that used to be at the heart of the insurance business. That was the job of those guys with the eyeshades in the back room – to figure out whether the risks were worth it. Instead AIG appears to have let marketing create newer and riskier products, and then to pay the marketing “geniuses” huge bonuses for their steady insurance acumen. What a mess.

Meanwhile, folks everywhere are being foreclosed upon, including churches. And AIG executives, flush from years of insane bonuses, sit pretty.

Thursday, March 19th, 2009 by Steven Reynolds |

AIG, Ed Liddy, and Me in NYC, Part II

Righteous indignation sometimes inspires us to actions that we wouldn’t normally consider doing – like traveling to New York City to stage a lone protest in front of the headquarters building of the world’s largest insurance company – AIG.

Commentary By: Richard Blair

I spent my St. Patrick’s day in New York City, tilting at a very large windmill – American International Group.

After a weekend of stewing about the outrageous bonus payments that a group of top AIG execs received, I decided on Monday that I wasn’t going to simply sit behind a keyboard and vent my outrage any longer. So, on Tuesday morning, I hopped on one of the Chinatown buses that runs between Philadelphia and NYC (what a great deal – $20 round trip, and I didn’t have to drive!), and headed for AIG’s corporate headquarters at 70 Pine St.

The walk from NYC’s Chinatown to the financial district isn’t particularly far – probably less than a mile – but there’s so much in the city for the senses to take in that it seems longer. As I made my way down Broadway from Worth St., I decided to take a short detour down Fulton, and walked over to the World Trade Center area. I’ve been to NYC many times since 9/11, but never visited the site to pay my respects.

WTCWhat started as a quick side trip up the block to view a recent gash on American history became almost a quest. The area is totally fenced and blocked, and there just isn’t a good vantage point to scope out the construction / reconstruction activities from street level. So I headed down Liberty St. toward the West Side Highway, through throngs of construction workers at lunch, headed up the stairs toward the 1 World Financial Center building, and was finally able to get a fairly decent view from the skyway to 1 WFC.

It struck me how so little has really been accomplished at the site in the 7-1/2 years since the buildings came down. Certainly, there have been many logistical and political issues involved in the reconstruction, but when you actually see the hole for the first time, it’s surprising that there has been so little local or national will to rebuild the area.

As I left 1 WFC, making my way toward Broadway I walked past the many small stores and eateries at street level. I tried to visualize what it must have been like to be a cashier in one of those shops when the towers came down, and I wondered how long this whole section of lower Manhattan had been basically uninhabitable before the bodegas and restaurants could reopen. My mind wouldn’t wrap around the imagery, so I let it go, but I clearly need to revisit that entire corner of my head sometime in the future.

NYPDHeading back down Broadway, I noticed a police car – no, two – no, three or four – with their light bars blinking near the corner of Cedar. I knew that I was getting close to Pine St., and there were news reports that security had been ramped up at all AIG facilities due to threatening emails and phone calls. Was the NYPD presence part of the security response?

As I turned down Pine St., it was clear that the cops weren’t on the street for AIG, because there didn’t appear to be any security personnel in view as I walked toward the headquarters building, two blocks distant. In fact, except for a small placard on the front of the building, and the address being stenciled on the window of the lobby coffee shop, I would have missed the building entirely. That’s the way the canyons of the financial district unfold.

70 Pine St. NYCI stopped in front of 70 Pine St. to take a picture. It’s a huge building, but has a deceptively small entrance for a 66 story skyscraper. From inside the building lobby, through a single revolving doorway, a security guy watched me warily as I snapped the photos, but I continued moving. I circled the block, and stopped in a Duane Reade drugstore to pick up a piece of poster board. Outside of the store, I pulled a Sharpie pen out of my backpack, created my sign, folded it, and put it in my pack. The logistics of my protest were now in place…

(more…)

Thursday, March 19th, 2009 by Richard Blair |

AIG Headquarters for Sale

$100 million seems like a bargain for a 66 story skyscraper in the canyons of NY City’s financial district…

Commentary By: Richard Blair

AIG HQAs I reported last night, the American International Building, AIG’s world headquarters at 70 Pine St. in New York City, is up for sale. According to the NY Post:

Bonus-bloated AIG is trying to scrape up another $100 million or so bucks by selling its 66-story Art Deco headquarters downtown…

AIG hired Cushman & Wakefield, whose brokers, Darcy Stacom and Bill Shanahan, sent out an e-mail to prospective buyers Monday boasting of the “breathtaking views” from the site, 70 Pine St.

But AIG probably will get only a fraction for the 77-year-old building that it would have gotten when the real-estate market was booming.

Industry sources said 70 Pine could have fetched around $320 million then. Now AIG will be lucky to pocket $100 million…

Cripes, that’s hardly even a dent on the bonuses the company paid out this past Friday. Still, the building might be a bargain – in fact, maybe one of the AIG bonus babies could use the cash they raked in this past Friday as a down payment. There’s a condo building next door (56 Pine St.), where a studio apartment goes for over $400,000.

Since the American taxpayer now owns 80% of AIG, does that mean we own 80% of the equity in the building?

Update, 2:15PM: 16 hours after a blogger broke the story, AP goes with it. They were in error, claiming the NY Post broke the story. I’m sure that they regret the error.

Wednesday, March 18th, 2009 by Richard Blair |

The Absence Of Angels In America: An Argument For Anarchy?

Philosophers have long debated the question, “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”. In these moments of economic peril and in light of our advancing animosity, perhaps the question should be, “Are there any angels in America?”. Better still, “Could today’s anarchists be tomorrow’s angels?”.


Commentary By: Daniel DiRito

At this unprecedented economic juncture, the inertia that accompanies our adherence to accepted, acrimonious, and antiquated algorithms has, by attrition, abrogated the principles of osmotic parity that have the potential to prevent our collapse…a collapse that would undoubtedly be defined by our dogmatic deification of unchecked political capitalism…a lecherous linking that history would likely depict as the opportunistic and incestuous appetite of the “ruling” class to copulate with corporate concubines in order to share in the symbiotic perks of prostitution that permeate the shameless pursuit of power and profit…absent a sufficient appreciation for the ameliorative aspects of altruistic governance and the shared success it should support.

When government is little more than the means to obtain or hold political power, it has become, by its very existence, the prevailing argument for the initiation of anarchy.

The aforementioned dysfunctional formulation of governmental “order” is antithetical to the symmetry oft associated with the social contract defined by our forefathers. As such, one can reasonably argue that our recent and rampant self-serving configuration of capitalism may well precipitate the initiation of anarchy as the means to destroy an unintended and unabated disease.

In this current conflation of chaos…a top of the pyramid chain letter economy powered by a Ponzi scheme psyche…perhaps anarchy (disorder) can actually be the means to “order”…an antidote that purges political prevarication…a virtual vaccine that seeks to supplant a systemic infection whose signature symptom is a seemingly endless urge to usurp utilitarianism.

The virulent nature of this virus leads many to seek the leverage that accompanies the disparate distribution of power and profit. It transforms those it touches into careless arsonists who peevishly persist in passing it on…thus acting as accelerants for an approaching anarchy.

Those in the media who promote political pettiness in order to insure the flow of dollars to the kingpins of corporate capitalism simply serve up the obnoxious oxygen that insures the ignition of inequity. Instead of enabling erudition, their lamentable locution does little more than circumvent any commitment to cerebral acuity or empathic expression.

In its final iteration, capitalism unchallenged becomes the hemlock of homage to the advancement of ad hominem histrionics that serve as a shortsighted and circuitous sheepskin shell designed to disguise the dogged drive for the lion’s share of the spoils…despite the derivable certainty that such shenanigans assure the anarchy that an adherence to such an ideology will undoubtedly advance.

In the 1993 Broadway play, Angels in America, the perilous and poignant promise of Kushner’s millennium is exemplified as a society of individual’s who, despite their awareness of their ailments and the attendant adversity, come to celebrate diversity despite its innate complexity…embrace redemption and reconciliation regardless of their unequivocal elusiveness…and endure their ongoing agony in the hopes of occasional ecstasy. His notion of the future is predicated upon the simple theory that our destination emerges when our dances of deception are dutifully debunked.

Fate is the fallacy of fools. The maelstrom of the millennium no longer approaches…it has arrived. We must shape tomorrow or it will consume us. What began must end. The future is now…or it will never be. Choice is the wisdom and the wherewithal to adopt anarchy when the continuation of the status quo insures its inevitability.

Cross posted at Thought Theater

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009 by Daniel DiRito |

The CEO of Comcast is TALENTED! Even in Death

The CEO of Comcast, Brian Roberts, earned millions in salary and bonuses last year. He’s talented and effective, so much so that the Board had contracted to pay salary and even performance-based bonuses to Roberts even after he dies. Yes, they expected him to perform at a high level after death. He’s VERY TALENTED!


Commentary By: Steven Reynolds

I’m sure if Brian Roberts makes a couple million a year in salary and maybe ten or fifteen million a year in bonus there are those out there who think that’s extravagant. But Comcast isn’t a bank, and they’re not going to get bailouts, so why should we worry about their compensation for executives? I suppose we might worry if we thought that compensation structures for all executives had gotten so far out of hand that they didn’t reflect company or executive performance anymore, but I’m no financial wizard. What do I know?

Brian Roberts of Comcast makes good money, over $2MM in salary, which the company decided to freeze. Evidently Comcast is sensitive to the massive public outcry over executive perks and compensation concerning other industries. More importantly, Comcast has decided to cut the salary and bonus Brian Roberts is eligible to be paid for the five years after his death. From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

The chief executive officer of Comcast Corp. will forgo an increase to his base salary for 2009, along with other top executives. In a filing yesterday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, CEO Brian Roberts also gave up his right to a base salary and annual cash bonus for up to five years after his death.

If I’m reading this correctly, Brian Roberts’ contract called for him to be paid for five years after he died. Indeed, his performance-based bonuses would potentially be paid for five years after his death as well. Yes, the Board of Comcast, in its infinite wisdom, thought Brian Roberts so talented that they foresaw paying him bonuses based on his performance even after he was dead.

That’s talented, to die and still perform at a high level, isn’t it?

Saturday, February 14th, 2009 by Steven Reynolds |