CHINA... SLOW PROGRESS ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS FRONT
How Fast Will Capitalism Push Forward Democracy?
China Jails Woman Over Web Post
By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN
The Associated Press
SHANGHAI, China (AP) - A woman who posted an article on the Internet criticizing the way China's government handles public complaints has been sentenced to 18 months in a labor camp, a human rights group said Thursday.
Ma Yalian used several Chinese legal affairs Web sites to post the article documenting her fruitless efforts to petition over the destruction of her Shanghai home, New York-based Human Rights in China, or HRIC, said in a statement.
Ma described police violence and harassment of her and other petitioners, the group said. She said some protested by committing suicide outside government offices. (full article)
Junto Boyz
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
|
DECLINE OF CNN... OVERALL DECLINE OF CABLE TV
Weakening of Liberal Media... Fox News Channel's Rise to Power
Informative article in The American Thinker:
CNN Loses Half its Viewership
March 31st, 2004
Information is a powerful solvent. It can melt away the illusions created by propagandists. The truth is addictive. People with a hunger for news generally crave the rush they get from learning the "rest of the story" the way a jittery junkie craves a hit of heroin.
This preference for the whole story is the reason why Fox News Channel continues its pattern of winning over viewers at the expense of its left-leaning rival CNN. Newly-reported rating figures confirm that in both times of expanding cable news viewership (driven by war) and times of contracting news viewership (due to the outbreak of less-dramatic peace), FNC is widening its lead. Fox now pulls very close to twice the viewers of CNN. Which clearly makes Fox "dominant" in its chosen field. (full article)
|
Weakening of Liberal Media... Fox News Channel's Rise to Power
Informative article in The American Thinker:
CNN Loses Half its Viewership
March 31st, 2004
Information is a powerful solvent. It can melt away the illusions created by propagandists. The truth is addictive. People with a hunger for news generally crave the rush they get from learning the "rest of the story" the way a jittery junkie craves a hit of heroin.
This preference for the whole story is the reason why Fox News Channel continues its pattern of winning over viewers at the expense of its left-leaning rival CNN. Newly-reported rating figures confirm that in both times of expanding cable news viewership (driven by war) and times of contracting news viewership (due to the outbreak of less-dramatic peace), FNC is widening its lead. Fox now pulls very close to twice the viewers of CNN. Which clearly makes Fox "dominant" in its chosen field. (full article)
WAL-MART VS. TARGET... UNIONS ARE A DIFFERENCE
Back Home in Chicago... Job Creation Blocked by Unions
Came across this post at The Chapin Nation. I'm not a huge fan of Wal-Mart, but definitely not a fan of most labor unions. Also I clipped a piece of the Chicago Tribune article and posted it afterwards:
Speaking of Wal-Mart. . .
Chicago is currently experiencing its own whoas in battling the behemoth corporation of consumerism. Wal-Mart had plans to open a store on the West Side. For those who don't know, Chicago being the murder capital of the country, the West-Side is the epicenter of that particular problem. Needless to say, the City could have used in no particular order 1) the jobs Wal-Mart would have created, 2) a much needed retail outlet in a blighted neighborhood, 3) the residual retail traffic the store would have most likely created, and 4) the tax revenues.
Unfortunately, not everyone in the City is for job and revenue creation. A group of alderman are against Wal-Mart coming into the City because they employ non-union labor. Guess who funds those aldermaic reelection campaigns? Yup, unions. Oddly, these same alderman have no problem with Target entering the City. Go figure.
Recently, Chicago has experienced a rash of job losses that also resulted in the loss of union jobs, union dues, and ultimately union power. Just yesterday for example, Radio Flyer, the little red wagon people, closed its manufacturing plant in the City that has existed since the company's inception. Ninety union jobs have been lost and sent to Asia. Is this a case of "outsourcing" that is dooming our American economy? No, it's smart business. Unions do two things that are detrimental. One, they create artificial wage inflation which translates into more expensive goods for consumers; and two, they take A LOT of money out of the wage earner's pocket each month through dues that too often go to fund the salaries and political ambitions of the union bosses.
The union jobs in Chicago aren't coming back. That's a sad fact. Unfortunately, it seems that those in the pockets of the unions would rather have people starve than gainfully employed as a result of their dwindling influence.
Posted by CommonSense : 5:31 PM
City loses by rejecting Wal-Mart
Chicago Tribune
Published March 30, 2004
For a city that has lost thousands of jobs in the past decade, Chicago has become awfully picky. Late last year Swedish retailer Ikea ditched plans to build in Chicago and Mayor Daley harrumphed, "It's just another company."
Last week a City Council committee delayed action on a Wal-Mart planned for the West Side, and labor unions would like to deep freeze a Wal-Mart planned for the South Side, because the retailer has a non-union workforce. Others say that Wal-Mart will undercut neighborhood establishments. (full article)
|
Back Home in Chicago... Job Creation Blocked by Unions
Came across this post at The Chapin Nation. I'm not a huge fan of Wal-Mart, but definitely not a fan of most labor unions. Also I clipped a piece of the Chicago Tribune article and posted it afterwards:
Speaking of Wal-Mart. . .
Chicago is currently experiencing its own whoas in battling the behemoth corporation of consumerism. Wal-Mart had plans to open a store on the West Side. For those who don't know, Chicago being the murder capital of the country, the West-Side is the epicenter of that particular problem. Needless to say, the City could have used in no particular order 1) the jobs Wal-Mart would have created, 2) a much needed retail outlet in a blighted neighborhood, 3) the residual retail traffic the store would have most likely created, and 4) the tax revenues.
Unfortunately, not everyone in the City is for job and revenue creation. A group of alderman are against Wal-Mart coming into the City because they employ non-union labor. Guess who funds those aldermaic reelection campaigns? Yup, unions. Oddly, these same alderman have no problem with Target entering the City. Go figure.
Recently, Chicago has experienced a rash of job losses that also resulted in the loss of union jobs, union dues, and ultimately union power. Just yesterday for example, Radio Flyer, the little red wagon people, closed its manufacturing plant in the City that has existed since the company's inception. Ninety union jobs have been lost and sent to Asia. Is this a case of "outsourcing" that is dooming our American economy? No, it's smart business. Unions do two things that are detrimental. One, they create artificial wage inflation which translates into more expensive goods for consumers; and two, they take A LOT of money out of the wage earner's pocket each month through dues that too often go to fund the salaries and political ambitions of the union bosses.
The union jobs in Chicago aren't coming back. That's a sad fact. Unfortunately, it seems that those in the pockets of the unions would rather have people starve than gainfully employed as a result of their dwindling influence.
Posted by CommonSense : 5:31 PM
City loses by rejecting Wal-Mart
Chicago Tribune
Published March 30, 2004
For a city that has lost thousands of jobs in the past decade, Chicago has become awfully picky. Late last year Swedish retailer Ikea ditched plans to build in Chicago and Mayor Daley harrumphed, "It's just another company."
Last week a City Council committee delayed action on a Wal-Mart planned for the West Side, and labor unions would like to deep freeze a Wal-Mart planned for the South Side, because the retailer has a non-union workforce. Others say that Wal-Mart will undercut neighborhood establishments. (full article)
AIR AMERICA KNOCKS OUT KOREAN RADIO STATION
Where's the Bay Area Uproar?... Hypocrisy Doesn't Sit Well With Me
Sourced from Instapundit. Air America, the newly launched liberal radio station, displaced Chinese and Korean radio programming in the Bay Area. If Rush Limbaugh or any conservative station did this, we all know there would be an uproar within the Bay Area and the majority of Asian American liberals across the U.S. Why not against Air America as with the recent campaign against Details Magazine? Just because they are "liberal" does it mean they are more sensitive to local ethnic radio stations? Obviously not. Whose voice are they concerned with? Obviously not Asian Americans because their voting strength doesn't really hold ground. Hispanics and Blacks are minority votes and voices that count, but not Asians. Wake up, people! Just because they are "liberal" does it mean Asian Americans should turn a blind eye? No. If Asian American liberals already think that conservatives hinder their voice, are they going to let both sides step on them? If so, I have less respect for liberal activists in the Asian American community. Where are the petitions now? The flurry of emails? I think I have to start my own campaign.
|
Where's the Bay Area Uproar?... Hypocrisy Doesn't Sit Well With Me
Sourced from Instapundit. Air America, the newly launched liberal radio station, displaced Chinese and Korean radio programming in the Bay Area. If Rush Limbaugh or any conservative station did this, we all know there would be an uproar within the Bay Area and the majority of Asian American liberals across the U.S. Why not against Air America as with the recent campaign against Details Magazine? Just because they are "liberal" does it mean they are more sensitive to local ethnic radio stations? Obviously not. Whose voice are they concerned with? Obviously not Asian Americans because their voting strength doesn't really hold ground. Hispanics and Blacks are minority votes and voices that count, but not Asians. Wake up, people! Just because they are "liberal" does it mean Asian Americans should turn a blind eye? No. If Asian American liberals already think that conservatives hinder their voice, are they going to let both sides step on them? If so, I have less respect for liberal activists in the Asian American community. Where are the petitions now? The flurry of emails? I think I have to start my own campaign.
U.N.'S OIL-FOR-FOOD SCANDAL
What Walks Like a Duck, Looks Like a Duck... Kofi Annan's Son
Even more disturbing is the $10.1 billion that the General Accounting Office estimates Saddam Hussein was able to salt away "in illegal revenues related to the Oil-for-Food program."
The French, Russia, and others were probably involved... picture getting clearer now. Maybe the Dems were involved too! :)
Turtle Bay’s Carnival of Corruption
Digging deeper into the scandalous Oil-for-Food program.
By Claudia Rosett
March 21, 2004
With United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan finally conceding the need for an independent investigation of the U.N.'s 1996-2003 Oil-for-Food program in Iraq, the next question is how investigators might begin to get a grip on the U.N.'s central role in this huge scandal.
Naturally, the rampant signs of corruption are important, and leads on graft involving U.N. personnel — including the program's executive director, Benon Sevan — need pursuing. If Sevan did receive oil from Saddam, as it now appears, then the immediate follow-up question is: What might Sevan have done in return, given his responsibilities for "overall management and coordination of all United Nations humanitarian activities in Iraq"? (full article)
|
What Walks Like a Duck, Looks Like a Duck... Kofi Annan's Son
Even more disturbing is the $10.1 billion that the General Accounting Office estimates Saddam Hussein was able to salt away "in illegal revenues related to the Oil-for-Food program."
The French, Russia, and others were probably involved... picture getting clearer now. Maybe the Dems were involved too! :)
Turtle Bay’s Carnival of Corruption
Digging deeper into the scandalous Oil-for-Food program.
By Claudia Rosett
March 21, 2004
With United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan finally conceding the need for an independent investigation of the U.N.'s 1996-2003 Oil-for-Food program in Iraq, the next question is how investigators might begin to get a grip on the U.N.'s central role in this huge scandal.
Naturally, the rampant signs of corruption are important, and leads on graft involving U.N. personnel — including the program's executive director, Benon Sevan — need pursuing. If Sevan did receive oil from Saddam, as it now appears, then the immediate follow-up question is: What might Sevan have done in return, given his responsibilities for "overall management and coordination of all United Nations humanitarian activities in Iraq"? (full article)
MELANA ZYLA VICKERS' ASSESSMENT OF THE CLINTON YEARS
Excellent Analysis of the Democrats' Efforts Against Terrorism
From Tech Central Station's Melana Zyla Vickers:
The Commission, the Democrats and Terrorism
By Melana Zyla Vickers
Until a few days ago, presidential candidate John Kerry was able to take all the shots he wanted at President Bush's record in the war on terror, while remaining out of critical range himself. But last week's 9/11 commission hearings changed all that.
The hearings presented a Democratic record on terrorism that is marred by fundamental policy fumbles and ultimately fatal misjudgments. Of course, some of the errors in fighting terrorism in the 1990s could have been -- and were -- made or repeated by the Republican administration of George W. Bush. But a top-five list drawn from the testimony before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the reports prepared by commission staff, reveals errors that stemmed from what might be described as the post Cold War, Democratic world-view. They include:
- Unwillingness to use force to retaliate against terrorism or pre-empt attacks.
- Inaction in the face of legal obstacles
- Animus toward the intelligence community
- Fear of unpopularity in the court of domestic and foreign public opinion
- Failure to improve the effectiveness of bilateral relations with Arab states and Pakistan. (full article)
|
Excellent Analysis of the Democrats' Efforts Against Terrorism
From Tech Central Station's Melana Zyla Vickers:
The Commission, the Democrats and Terrorism
By Melana Zyla Vickers
Until a few days ago, presidential candidate John Kerry was able to take all the shots he wanted at President Bush's record in the war on terror, while remaining out of critical range himself. But last week's 9/11 commission hearings changed all that.
The hearings presented a Democratic record on terrorism that is marred by fundamental policy fumbles and ultimately fatal misjudgments. Of course, some of the errors in fighting terrorism in the 1990s could have been -- and were -- made or repeated by the Republican administration of George W. Bush. But a top-five list drawn from the testimony before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the reports prepared by commission staff, reveals errors that stemmed from what might be described as the post Cold War, Democratic world-view. They include:
- Unwillingness to use force to retaliate against terrorism or pre-empt attacks.
- Inaction in the face of legal obstacles
- Animus toward the intelligence community
- Fear of unpopularity in the court of domestic and foreign public opinion
- Failure to improve the effectiveness of bilateral relations with Arab states and Pakistan. (full article)
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
NOT GOOD NEWS FOR RIAA
New Study on Music Piracy
Study: File-Sharing No Threat to Music Sales
Tue Mar 30, 8:59 AM ET
By David McGuire, washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Internet music piracy has no negative effect on legitimate music sales, according to a study released today by two university researchers that contradicts the music industry's assertion that the illegal downloading of music online is taking a big bite out of its bottom line. (full article)
|
New Study on Music Piracy
Study: File-Sharing No Threat to Music Sales
Tue Mar 30, 8:59 AM ET
By David McGuire, washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Internet music piracy has no negative effect on legitimate music sales, according to a study released today by two university researchers that contradicts the music industry's assertion that the illegal downloading of music online is taking a big bite out of its bottom line. (full article)
FAMILIES OF VICTIMS OF 9/11 SPEAK OUT
Against Richard Clarke... Egotistical, Greedy Bastard
Another one I've been meaning to post earlier, so here it is. A great op-ed by the family members who lost loved ones from 9/11:
NO THANKS, MR. CLARKE
New York Post
March 28, 2004 -- WE are all in agreement that a review of what happened leading up to 9/11 is important for many reasons. As families and friends of loved ones killed by the terrorists that day, we want to know if 9/11 realistically could have been prevented, whether justice is being brought to those behind this attack, and, most important, that our government is taking the right action to stop future attacks.
A meaningful review as to what happened on 9/11 and the aftermath can only happen if it is truly nonpartisan. Unfortunately, this week much of the non-partisanship was taken from us when Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism advisor, decided to use his testimony before the 9/11 Commission to showcase the release of his tell-all book.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was an overwhelming outpouring of support from all corners of America. New Yorkers, non-New Yorkers, Democrats, Republicans - none of that mattered. We were all joined together as a country to share our grief over what the terrorists did to America that day.
Of course, even then, a small number of individuals tried to take advantage of the situation and emotions exposed by 9/11, from looters of shops destroyed in the attack to those who filed bogus insurance claims. We realized then that the likelihood of exploitation would only increase as the distance of time began to separate us from that horrible day. (full article)
|
Against Richard Clarke... Egotistical, Greedy Bastard
Another one I've been meaning to post earlier, so here it is. A great op-ed by the family members who lost loved ones from 9/11:
NO THANKS, MR. CLARKE
New York Post
March 28, 2004 -- WE are all in agreement that a review of what happened leading up to 9/11 is important for many reasons. As families and friends of loved ones killed by the terrorists that day, we want to know if 9/11 realistically could have been prevented, whether justice is being brought to those behind this attack, and, most important, that our government is taking the right action to stop future attacks.
A meaningful review as to what happened on 9/11 and the aftermath can only happen if it is truly nonpartisan. Unfortunately, this week much of the non-partisanship was taken from us when Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism advisor, decided to use his testimony before the 9/11 Commission to showcase the release of his tell-all book.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was an overwhelming outpouring of support from all corners of America. New Yorkers, non-New Yorkers, Democrats, Republicans - none of that mattered. We were all joined together as a country to share our grief over what the terrorists did to America that day.
Of course, even then, a small number of individuals tried to take advantage of the situation and emotions exposed by 9/11, from looters of shops destroyed in the attack to those who filed bogus insurance claims. We realized then that the likelihood of exploitation would only increase as the distance of time began to separate us from that horrible day. (full article)
ANNOYING, IGNORANT WHITNEY MCNALLY
What Were You Thinking Details Magazine?
Annoying, ignorant, and not-so-funny feature in Details last month comparing Gays and Asians. What if the comparison was with Hispanics or Blacks? I guess if you're going to make fun of a race it should be Asians since we don't have a strong voice or voting block in the U.S. They should have just made fun of the French and I would feel a whole lot better... maybe they already did. Anyway, I got an email from my friend a few days back with a link to an online petition to the advertisers in Detail, so if you're interested in doing more check it out. Or just email blast Whitney Mcnally.
Also here's more information from a funny site, angry asian man, at its March 30th entry. I think the site was started by a few Northwestern University students.
|
What Were You Thinking Details Magazine?
Annoying, ignorant, and not-so-funny feature in Details last month comparing Gays and Asians. What if the comparison was with Hispanics or Blacks? I guess if you're going to make fun of a race it should be Asians since we don't have a strong voice or voting block in the U.S. They should have just made fun of the French and I would feel a whole lot better... maybe they already did. Anyway, I got an email from my friend a few days back with a link to an online petition to the advertisers in Detail, so if you're interested in doing more check it out. Or just email blast Whitney Mcnally.
Also here's more information from a funny site, angry asian man, at its March 30th entry. I think the site was started by a few Northwestern University students.
SUMS IT ALL UP... GREAT FLASH AD
From Instapundit... Check it out!
"OKAY, I HAVEN'T SEEN ALL THE OFFICIAL BUSH CAMPAIGN ADS -- but this freelance effort is better than all the official ads that I have seen."
|
From Instapundit... Check it out!
"OKAY, I HAVEN'T SEEN ALL THE OFFICIAL BUSH CAMPAIGN ADS -- but this freelance effort is better than all the official ads that I have seen."
Monday, March 29, 2004
HILARIOUS COMMENTARY BY MARK STEYN
"Bush has nothing to fear from this hilarious work of fiction"
Originally sourced from CommonSense & Wonder. Very funny. The part about Clarke thinking Dr. Rice's "facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before" cracks me up since she obviously knew a lot about al-Qa'eda (last paragraph below). Since I've been there with arrogant, intellectual wannabes, I believe that facial expression was more like, "Why are you talking to me like I'm a five year old?... I don't believe I'm being lectured by this guy... Here he goes again!... Please someone tell him to stop. Please!" Excerpt:
The details of the brilliant plan need not concern us, which is just as well, as there aren't any. But the broader point, as The New York Times noted, is that "there was at least no question about the Clinton administration's commitment to combat terrorism".
Yessir, for eight years the Clinton administration was relentless in its commitment: no sooner did al-Qa'eda bomb the World Trade Center first time round, or blow up an American embassy, or a barracks, or a warship, or turn an entire nation into a terrorist training camp, than the Clinton team would redouble their determination to sit down and talk through the options for a couple more years. Then Bush took over and suddenly the superbly successful fight against terror all went to hell.
.....
The media were very taken by this passage from his book, in which he alerts Mr Bush's incoming National Security Adviser to the terrorist threat: "As I briefed Rice on al-Qa'eda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before, so I added, 'Most people think of it as Osama bin Laden's group, but it's much more than that. It's a network of affiliated terrorist organisations with cells in over 50 countries, including the US.' "
Mr Clarke would seem to be channelling Leslie Nielsen's deadpan doctor in Airplane!: "Stewardess, we need to get this passenger to a hospital."
"A hospital? What is it?"
"It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now."
As it turns out, Clarke's ability to read "facial expressions" is not as reliable as one might wish in a "counter-terrorism expert". In October the previous year, Dr Rice gave an interview to WJR Radio in Detroit in which she discoursed authoritatively on al-Qa'eda and bin Laden - and without ever having met Richard Clarke! (full article)
|
"Bush has nothing to fear from this hilarious work of fiction"
Originally sourced from CommonSense & Wonder. Very funny. The part about Clarke thinking Dr. Rice's "facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before" cracks me up since she obviously knew a lot about al-Qa'eda (last paragraph below). Since I've been there with arrogant, intellectual wannabes, I believe that facial expression was more like, "Why are you talking to me like I'm a five year old?... I don't believe I'm being lectured by this guy... Here he goes again!... Please someone tell him to stop. Please!" Excerpt:
The details of the brilliant plan need not concern us, which is just as well, as there aren't any. But the broader point, as The New York Times noted, is that "there was at least no question about the Clinton administration's commitment to combat terrorism".
Yessir, for eight years the Clinton administration was relentless in its commitment: no sooner did al-Qa'eda bomb the World Trade Center first time round, or blow up an American embassy, or a barracks, or a warship, or turn an entire nation into a terrorist training camp, than the Clinton team would redouble their determination to sit down and talk through the options for a couple more years. Then Bush took over and suddenly the superbly successful fight against terror all went to hell.
.....
The media were very taken by this passage from his book, in which he alerts Mr Bush's incoming National Security Adviser to the terrorist threat: "As I briefed Rice on al-Qa'eda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before, so I added, 'Most people think of it as Osama bin Laden's group, but it's much more than that. It's a network of affiliated terrorist organisations with cells in over 50 countries, including the US.' "
Mr Clarke would seem to be channelling Leslie Nielsen's deadpan doctor in Airplane!: "Stewardess, we need to get this passenger to a hospital."
"A hospital? What is it?"
"It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now."
As it turns out, Clarke's ability to read "facial expressions" is not as reliable as one might wish in a "counter-terrorism expert". In October the previous year, Dr Rice gave an interview to WJR Radio in Detroit in which she discoursed authoritatively on al-Qa'eda and bin Laden - and without ever having met Richard Clarke! (full article)
CLARKE GAVE ONLY TO DEMS... SURPRISE, SURPRISE!
Gomer Pyle Would Have a Hard Time Stopping His Chant
Records Show Richard Clarke Gave Only to Democrats
Posted March 25, 2004
By J. Michael Waller
Former counterterrorism czar Richard A. Clarke insists his attacks on President George W. Bush have nothing to do with politics, but an Insight check of Federal Election Commission (FEC) records shows that his only political contributions in the last decade have gone to Democrats. (full article)
|
Gomer Pyle Would Have a Hard Time Stopping His Chant
Records Show Richard Clarke Gave Only to Democrats
Posted March 25, 2004
By J. Michael Waller
Former counterterrorism czar Richard A. Clarke insists his attacks on President George W. Bush have nothing to do with politics, but an Insight check of Federal Election Commission (FEC) records shows that his only political contributions in the last decade have gone to Democrats. (full article)
RICHARD CLARKE ON MEET THE PRESS
My Brief and Snide Analysis
Last night I watched Richard Clarke on "Meet The Press" and was impressed by Richard Clarke's even-tempered, stale responses as he avoided answering some of Tim Russert's questions and lied to America on national TV. Does he really believe that Americans are that stupid? Especially about how he had nothing to do with timing of the book release during the 9/11 hearings and how money wasn't a motive. Link, excerpts, and my comments below.
Meet The Press, Transcript for March 28:
MR. RUSSERT: Now, when you resigned, you sent a very polite letter to the president: "It's been an enormous privilege to serve you these past 24 months. I will always remember the courage, determination, calm leadership you demonstrated on September 11. I thank you again for the opportunity to serve you. You have provided me"--was that just being polite?
MR. CLARKE: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Or are you now just being disloyal?
MR. CLARKE: No. Well, my mother taught me to be polite...
Yes, I was being polite and 'no' I wasn't being disloyal? Great way for Russert to frame the question because if he was just being "polite" then he was being disloyal by slandering President Bush in the media and through his book after serving him in his appointed position. Clarke tries to get out of this dilemma by starting with a displacement on his mother, "Well, my mother taught me to be polite..." What does that mean? Well... well, my mother told me not to be mean and disloyal, but I did it anyway? Almost good, but not good enough Mr. Clarke. You are disloyal and a disgrace to public servants in the U.S.
MR. RUSSERT: But you were turned down for the number-two job at Homeland Security?
MR. CLARKE: No, I wasn't turned down for it. What happened was the White House was developing lists of people to consider for various jobs. And I said, "If you want to consider me, fine. I've been working on homeland security issues for five years."
MR. RUSSERT: Did you interview for it?
MR. CLARKE: I was interviewed for it. Am I disgruntled about it? No.
Now his pride comes out. A very prideful man, but not surprising if you saw him during the 9/11 hearings and this interview. Very smug attitude and arrogance. Yes, Dick, you were turned down. If you were interviewed (good question by Russert) and you didn't get the position, then you were turned down. Hahahaha... Even his response gives it away since he didn't say that he got the position and rejected it but just says that he is not disgruntled about it.
MR. RUSSERT: Publishers Weekly in January said that your book would come out, as it shows on the screen here, on April 27. It was then released the day before the September 11th Commission hearings. Was the book released, accelerated and timed for maximum exposure before those hearings?
MR. CLARKE: I left the White House in February. I started working on the book in March. It's the first time I ever wrote a book. It turns out it's a lot harder to write a book, Tim, than it is to write government memos; had to do a lot of research, and I didn't have any access to my government files. I didn't have any classified papers. So I finished the book in October and had to turn it in to the White House for them to approve it. As a former White House official, your books have to be approved by the White House. And the White House took a very long time to approve my book. As soon as the book was approved by the White House in February, I gave it to the publisher and it was out of my hands after that. The publisher got it out as fast as they could. Our original intention was to...
MR. RUSSERT: Because the White House delayed publication. You had scheduled April 22.
MR. CLARKE: No, I hadn't scheduled anything.
MR. RUSSERT: The publisher had. You moved it up by more than a month to coincide with the hearings?
MR. CLARKE: I didn't. Tim, I turned the book in in February. I have no control over what Publishers Weekly says or when the printing presses are available. I wanted it to be a Christmas book. And I turned it in time for it to get out at Christmas had the White House not sat on it in the White House approval process.
"Was the book released, accelerated and timed for maximum exposure before those hearings?"
He didn't even answer this question. He avoided the question because his primary answer does not make sense, which Russert pointed out. What does the White House being late on the approval process have to do with him and his publishers getting the book out early from the stated date of April 22nd? Bawhahahaha... cracking a little, Dick? Of course you put it out right before the 9/11 hearings to get maximum exposure. Just admit it, so you don't seem more evil. Greed is one thing, but deception just adds more to your poor character and Gollum-like personality.
MR. RUSSERT: And, again, this has become part of the controversy. Again, Senator Frist went to the Senate floor and let's listen:
(Videotape, March 26, 2004):
SEN. FRIST: Assuming the controversy around this series of events does, in fact, drive the sales of his book, Mr. Clarke will make a lot of money, a lot of money for exactly what he has done. I personally find this to be an appalling act of profiteering, of trading on insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing upon the tragedy that befell this nation on September the 11th, 2001. Mr. Clarke must renounce, I think, any plan to personally profit from this book.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: The book is dedicated to those who were murdered on September 11 and you apologize to the families. Would you consider giving the royalties or profits from the book to the children of those families who were murdered?
MR. CLARKE: Tim, long before Senator Frist said what he said, I planned to make a substantial contribution, not only to them but also to the widows and orphans of our Special Forces who have fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq. And when we see the results of the book sales, we'll know how much we have to make donations. I also have to consider the fact that friends of mine in the White House, because I still have friends in the White House, having worked there for 11 years, are telling me that the word is out in the White House to destroy me professionally. One line that somebody overheard was "he's not going to make another dime again in Washington in his life." So I have to take that into account, too, this sort of vicious personal attack is also directed at my bank account. But this is not about me making money. It's about getting the truth out. And long before Senator Frist said what he said, I planned to make substantial donations, and I will make substantial donations.
Again, what's "substantial?" Here Russert should have pushed and asked what do you mean by "substantial?" A few thousand? Hundreds of thousand? Millions? He should have gotten him to make a commitment there. I didn't expect him to say that he will give it all of it away since he's driven by money, but his additional excuse made me sick. He talked about "one line that somebody overheard" how people in the White House are not going to allow him to make another dime. He said that he has to take this into account? Nice excuse to cover your greed. Call Soros and I bet he would hire you in a flash. Please, Dick, how stupid do you think we are? How many think tanks with fat paychecks can you work for now? Especially Democratic ones that will reward you for making a key attack on Bush's campaign and administration? Do the honorable thing and give up all the profits of this partisan book and give it to the families of the victims of 9/11.
MR. RUSSERT: You voted for Al Gore.
MR. CLARKE: Yes, I did.
MR. RUSSERT: In 2004 you'll vote for John Kerry?
MR. CLARKE: I'm not going to endorse John Kerry. That's what the White House wants me to do. And they want to say I'm part of the Kerry campaign. I've already pledged I'm not part of the Kerry campaign and I will not serve in the Kerry administration.
MR. RUSSERT: Will you vote for him?
MR. CLARKE: That's my business.
Great post in Powerline about his response:
Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics sent us this email on Richard Clarke's deceitful claim of political neutrality:
My ears nearly fell off when I heard Dick Clarke say he voted for Al Gore on Meet the Press today, since I thought I heard him say he voted for Bush on Thursday. Turns out I was wrong, Clarke only misled me (and probably many others including members of the 9/11 Commission) into believing that. Here are the quotes:
Sunday on Meet the Press:
Russert: Did you vote for George Bush in 2000?
Clarke: No I did not.
Russert: Did you vote for Al Gore?
Clarke: Yes I did.
Wednesday Before the 9/11 Commission: Clarke: "Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raise it. I've been accused of being a member of John Kerry's campaign team several times this week, including by the White House. So let's just lay that one to bed. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign. Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot."
|
My Brief and Snide Analysis
Last night I watched Richard Clarke on "Meet The Press" and was impressed by Richard Clarke's even-tempered, stale responses as he avoided answering some of Tim Russert's questions and lied to America on national TV. Does he really believe that Americans are that stupid? Especially about how he had nothing to do with timing of the book release during the 9/11 hearings and how money wasn't a motive. Link, excerpts, and my comments below.
Meet The Press, Transcript for March 28:
MR. RUSSERT: Now, when you resigned, you sent a very polite letter to the president: "It's been an enormous privilege to serve you these past 24 months. I will always remember the courage, determination, calm leadership you demonstrated on September 11. I thank you again for the opportunity to serve you. You have provided me"--was that just being polite?
MR. CLARKE: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Or are you now just being disloyal?
MR. CLARKE: No. Well, my mother taught me to be polite...
Yes, I was being polite and 'no' I wasn't being disloyal? Great way for Russert to frame the question because if he was just being "polite" then he was being disloyal by slandering President Bush in the media and through his book after serving him in his appointed position. Clarke tries to get out of this dilemma by starting with a displacement on his mother, "Well, my mother taught me to be polite..." What does that mean? Well... well, my mother told me not to be mean and disloyal, but I did it anyway? Almost good, but not good enough Mr. Clarke. You are disloyal and a disgrace to public servants in the U.S.
MR. RUSSERT: But you were turned down for the number-two job at Homeland Security?
MR. CLARKE: No, I wasn't turned down for it. What happened was the White House was developing lists of people to consider for various jobs. And I said, "If you want to consider me, fine. I've been working on homeland security issues for five years."
MR. RUSSERT: Did you interview for it?
MR. CLARKE: I was interviewed for it. Am I disgruntled about it? No.
Now his pride comes out. A very prideful man, but not surprising if you saw him during the 9/11 hearings and this interview. Very smug attitude and arrogance. Yes, Dick, you were turned down. If you were interviewed (good question by Russert) and you didn't get the position, then you were turned down. Hahahaha... Even his response gives it away since he didn't say that he got the position and rejected it but just says that he is not disgruntled about it.
MR. RUSSERT: Publishers Weekly in January said that your book would come out, as it shows on the screen here, on April 27. It was then released the day before the September 11th Commission hearings. Was the book released, accelerated and timed for maximum exposure before those hearings?
MR. CLARKE: I left the White House in February. I started working on the book in March. It's the first time I ever wrote a book. It turns out it's a lot harder to write a book, Tim, than it is to write government memos; had to do a lot of research, and I didn't have any access to my government files. I didn't have any classified papers. So I finished the book in October and had to turn it in to the White House for them to approve it. As a former White House official, your books have to be approved by the White House. And the White House took a very long time to approve my book. As soon as the book was approved by the White House in February, I gave it to the publisher and it was out of my hands after that. The publisher got it out as fast as they could. Our original intention was to...
MR. RUSSERT: Because the White House delayed publication. You had scheduled April 22.
MR. CLARKE: No, I hadn't scheduled anything.
MR. RUSSERT: The publisher had. You moved it up by more than a month to coincide with the hearings?
MR. CLARKE: I didn't. Tim, I turned the book in in February. I have no control over what Publishers Weekly says or when the printing presses are available. I wanted it to be a Christmas book. And I turned it in time for it to get out at Christmas had the White House not sat on it in the White House approval process.
"Was the book released, accelerated and timed for maximum exposure before those hearings?"
He didn't even answer this question. He avoided the question because his primary answer does not make sense, which Russert pointed out. What does the White House being late on the approval process have to do with him and his publishers getting the book out early from the stated date of April 22nd? Bawhahahaha... cracking a little, Dick? Of course you put it out right before the 9/11 hearings to get maximum exposure. Just admit it, so you don't seem more evil. Greed is one thing, but deception just adds more to your poor character and Gollum-like personality.
MR. RUSSERT: And, again, this has become part of the controversy. Again, Senator Frist went to the Senate floor and let's listen:
(Videotape, March 26, 2004):
SEN. FRIST: Assuming the controversy around this series of events does, in fact, drive the sales of his book, Mr. Clarke will make a lot of money, a lot of money for exactly what he has done. I personally find this to be an appalling act of profiteering, of trading on insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing upon the tragedy that befell this nation on September the 11th, 2001. Mr. Clarke must renounce, I think, any plan to personally profit from this book.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: The book is dedicated to those who were murdered on September 11 and you apologize to the families. Would you consider giving the royalties or profits from the book to the children of those families who were murdered?
MR. CLARKE: Tim, long before Senator Frist said what he said, I planned to make a substantial contribution, not only to them but also to the widows and orphans of our Special Forces who have fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq. And when we see the results of the book sales, we'll know how much we have to make donations. I also have to consider the fact that friends of mine in the White House, because I still have friends in the White House, having worked there for 11 years, are telling me that the word is out in the White House to destroy me professionally. One line that somebody overheard was "he's not going to make another dime again in Washington in his life." So I have to take that into account, too, this sort of vicious personal attack is also directed at my bank account. But this is not about me making money. It's about getting the truth out. And long before Senator Frist said what he said, I planned to make substantial donations, and I will make substantial donations.
Again, what's "substantial?" Here Russert should have pushed and asked what do you mean by "substantial?" A few thousand? Hundreds of thousand? Millions? He should have gotten him to make a commitment there. I didn't expect him to say that he will give it all of it away since he's driven by money, but his additional excuse made me sick. He talked about "one line that somebody overheard" how people in the White House are not going to allow him to make another dime. He said that he has to take this into account? Nice excuse to cover your greed. Call Soros and I bet he would hire you in a flash. Please, Dick, how stupid do you think we are? How many think tanks with fat paychecks can you work for now? Especially Democratic ones that will reward you for making a key attack on Bush's campaign and administration? Do the honorable thing and give up all the profits of this partisan book and give it to the families of the victims of 9/11.
MR. RUSSERT: You voted for Al Gore.
MR. CLARKE: Yes, I did.
MR. RUSSERT: In 2004 you'll vote for John Kerry?
MR. CLARKE: I'm not going to endorse John Kerry. That's what the White House wants me to do. And they want to say I'm part of the Kerry campaign. I've already pledged I'm not part of the Kerry campaign and I will not serve in the Kerry administration.
MR. RUSSERT: Will you vote for him?
MR. CLARKE: That's my business.
Great post in Powerline about his response:
Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics sent us this email on Richard Clarke's deceitful claim of political neutrality:
My ears nearly fell off when I heard Dick Clarke say he voted for Al Gore on Meet the Press today, since I thought I heard him say he voted for Bush on Thursday. Turns out I was wrong, Clarke only misled me (and probably many others including members of the 9/11 Commission) into believing that. Here are the quotes:
Sunday on Meet the Press:
Russert: Did you vote for George Bush in 2000?
Clarke: No I did not.
Russert: Did you vote for Al Gore?
Clarke: Yes I did.
Wednesday Before the 9/11 Commission: Clarke: "Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raise it. I've been accused of being a member of John Kerry's campaign team several times this week, including by the White House. So let's just lay that one to bed. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign. Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot."
Sunday, March 28, 2004
ANDY GROVE SPEAKS... FIXING THE LADDER OF THE AMERICAN DREAM
Intel's Five Stages for Dealing with Problems
Good speech by Grove at Stanford's Graduate School of Business. Intel's approach to dealing with problems is also on the money for social and corporate issues:
Grove Challenges the GSB to Remake the American Dream
February 2004
STANFORD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS — Andy Grove has challenged the Business School to take a leading role in putting some missing rungs back in the ladder leading to the American Dream.
The chairman of Intel recalled a chance meeting recently with a woman named Polly who had been a technician at Intel in its early days. "She said 'I want you to meet my daughter, She's a school counselor and has a PhD in psychology. Intel put her through school,'" Grove recalled. Then she added "Intel also put her son through school. He's an engineer."
Later, Grove said, "I had this image of the American Dream being a ladder, a ladder where Polly starts as a technician at Intel and two generations of accomplished professional people are the result of her work and her opportunity to do a fairly significant job for a startup company. The problem is that a rung or two are being taken out of that ladder and the generational climb is going to be interrupted."
When Grove, a Business School lecturer, and management professor Robert Burgelman teach the MBA elective Strategy and Action in the Information Processing Industry they describe the strategic inflection point, a critical period of huge changes in one or more forces guiding an industry. These periods create tremendous opportunities but also threats to companies that cannot change or are too slow in recognizing the need for change.
Today businesses are faced with "the mother of all strategic inflection points," Grove told the audience at the Business School's February dinner honoring him with the 2004 Arbuckle Award. The inflection, he said, is being caused by the advent of global networks allowing demand for intellectual work to flow out of the United States to countries like India with well educated workforces. This comes at a time when industry is struggling with self-created internal threats that hamper its ability to survive the strategic inflection such as the new wave of corporate criminal conduct and of governance issues. "The key task of governance is to apportion the responsibility for and management of the company, distinguishing the corporation from the personal fiefdom or piggy bank of its managers," said Grove.
However, he said the most serious problem facing American business is its value system. Strong corporate cultures develop strong control mechanisms with less need to supervise and develop policies and procedures for every situation.
"There is an assumption that our business culture and values got worse because of the bubble," said Grove, who with Burgelman has taught his Business School course through two business cycles, the Internet boom, and the following bust. "But I really wonder if that's true.
Society's expectations of business have gotten tougher and more discriminating, he said, but the nation is not responding well to these demands. "We all know that in the absence of strong corporate cultures, companies turn bureaucratic, our business mechanisms, roles, infrastructures become ossified and less competent. Today, this is happening at the very time we as a business society face the strongest competition yet from a lean, hungry, well educated workforce well served by a modern infrastructure.
"I can only describe this as the perfect storm. Coping with the storm requires doing what is necessary for the rungs to be there and for the American Dream to continue.
"At Intel, we see five stages for dealing with a new problem: First you ignore its existence; second is denial; third you blame others for it; fourth you assume responsibility for it, and fifth — a solution is coming. I think it is safe to say we are past the ignore stage and are straddling the deny and blame others stages. It is mandatory for us to figure out ways to assume responsibility and look for solutions.
"What could be a better mission for the Stanford Business School, in association with Stanford Law School, Engineering School, the Hoover Institution, etc., than a unifying mission to move us to stage five and lead the way to an intellectual prescription for putting rungs back in the ladder of the American dream?"
|
Intel's Five Stages for Dealing with Problems
Good speech by Grove at Stanford's Graduate School of Business. Intel's approach to dealing with problems is also on the money for social and corporate issues:
Grove Challenges the GSB to Remake the American Dream
February 2004
STANFORD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS — Andy Grove has challenged the Business School to take a leading role in putting some missing rungs back in the ladder leading to the American Dream.
The chairman of Intel recalled a chance meeting recently with a woman named Polly who had been a technician at Intel in its early days. "She said 'I want you to meet my daughter, She's a school counselor and has a PhD in psychology. Intel put her through school,'" Grove recalled. Then she added "Intel also put her son through school. He's an engineer."
Later, Grove said, "I had this image of the American Dream being a ladder, a ladder where Polly starts as a technician at Intel and two generations of accomplished professional people are the result of her work and her opportunity to do a fairly significant job for a startup company. The problem is that a rung or two are being taken out of that ladder and the generational climb is going to be interrupted."
When Grove, a Business School lecturer, and management professor Robert Burgelman teach the MBA elective Strategy and Action in the Information Processing Industry they describe the strategic inflection point, a critical period of huge changes in one or more forces guiding an industry. These periods create tremendous opportunities but also threats to companies that cannot change or are too slow in recognizing the need for change.
Today businesses are faced with "the mother of all strategic inflection points," Grove told the audience at the Business School's February dinner honoring him with the 2004 Arbuckle Award. The inflection, he said, is being caused by the advent of global networks allowing demand for intellectual work to flow out of the United States to countries like India with well educated workforces. This comes at a time when industry is struggling with self-created internal threats that hamper its ability to survive the strategic inflection such as the new wave of corporate criminal conduct and of governance issues. "The key task of governance is to apportion the responsibility for and management of the company, distinguishing the corporation from the personal fiefdom or piggy bank of its managers," said Grove.
However, he said the most serious problem facing American business is its value system. Strong corporate cultures develop strong control mechanisms with less need to supervise and develop policies and procedures for every situation.
"There is an assumption that our business culture and values got worse because of the bubble," said Grove, who with Burgelman has taught his Business School course through two business cycles, the Internet boom, and the following bust. "But I really wonder if that's true.
Society's expectations of business have gotten tougher and more discriminating, he said, but the nation is not responding well to these demands. "We all know that in the absence of strong corporate cultures, companies turn bureaucratic, our business mechanisms, roles, infrastructures become ossified and less competent. Today, this is happening at the very time we as a business society face the strongest competition yet from a lean, hungry, well educated workforce well served by a modern infrastructure.
"I can only describe this as the perfect storm. Coping with the storm requires doing what is necessary for the rungs to be there and for the American Dream to continue.
"At Intel, we see five stages for dealing with a new problem: First you ignore its existence; second is denial; third you blame others for it; fourth you assume responsibility for it, and fifth — a solution is coming. I think it is safe to say we are past the ignore stage and are straddling the deny and blame others stages. It is mandatory for us to figure out ways to assume responsibility and look for solutions.
"What could be a better mission for the Stanford Business School, in association with Stanford Law School, Engineering School, the Hoover Institution, etc., than a unifying mission to move us to stage five and lead the way to an intellectual prescription for putting rungs back in the ladder of the American dream?"
BUSH DOCTRINE BELIEVERS
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Response
Good editorial response to the 9/11 hearings.
A President's Job
The 9/11 hearings: We're all Bush Doctrine believers now.
Friday, March 26, 2004 12:01 a.m.
Give President Bush's critics credit for versatility. Having spent months assailing him for doing too much after 9/11--Iraq, the Patriot Act, the "pre-emption" doctrine--they have now turned on a dime to allege that he did too little before it. This contradiction is Mr. Bush's opportunity to rise above the ankle biting and explain to the American public what a President is elected to do.
Any President's most difficult decision is how and when to defend the American people. As the 9/11 hearings reveal, there are always a thousand reasons for a President not to act. The intelligence might be uncertain, civilians might be killed, U.S. soldiers could die, and the "international community" might object. There are risks in any decision. But when Presidents fail to act at all, or act with too little conviction, we get a September 11.
This is the real lesson emerging from the 9/11 Commission hearings if you listen above the partisan din. In their eagerness to insist that Mr. Bush should have acted more pre-emptively before 9/11, the critics are rebutting their own case against the President's aggressive antiterror policy ever since. The implication of their critique is that Mr. Bush didn't repudiate the failed strategy of the Clinton years fast enough.
The bias in these columns has long been to support forceful Presidential leadership on national security. Even when skeptical about a military intervention, as we were about Haiti in 1994, we saluted once Bill Clinton sent in the troops. We supported Mr. Clinton in Bosnia and Kosovo, and we were among the few who didn't pile on Jimmy Carter after the hostage-rescue fiasco in Iran.
We likewise support Mr. Bush's antiterror leadership, despite the inevitable missteps of planning or WMD intelligence. Whatever lapses may have occurred in the eight months of his Presidency before 9/11, since that day Mr. Bush has had the courage to act, and forcefully. He has turned 20 years of antiterror policy on its head, going on offense by taking the war to the terrorists, toppling state sponsors in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now attempting to "transform" the Middle East through a democratic beachhead in Iraq. This is leadership. (full article)
|
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Response
Good editorial response to the 9/11 hearings.
A President's Job
The 9/11 hearings: We're all Bush Doctrine believers now.
Friday, March 26, 2004 12:01 a.m.
Give President Bush's critics credit for versatility. Having spent months assailing him for doing too much after 9/11--Iraq, the Patriot Act, the "pre-emption" doctrine--they have now turned on a dime to allege that he did too little before it. This contradiction is Mr. Bush's opportunity to rise above the ankle biting and explain to the American public what a President is elected to do.
Any President's most difficult decision is how and when to defend the American people. As the 9/11 hearings reveal, there are always a thousand reasons for a President not to act. The intelligence might be uncertain, civilians might be killed, U.S. soldiers could die, and the "international community" might object. There are risks in any decision. But when Presidents fail to act at all, or act with too little conviction, we get a September 11.
This is the real lesson emerging from the 9/11 Commission hearings if you listen above the partisan din. In their eagerness to insist that Mr. Bush should have acted more pre-emptively before 9/11, the critics are rebutting their own case against the President's aggressive antiterror policy ever since. The implication of their critique is that Mr. Bush didn't repudiate the failed strategy of the Clinton years fast enough.
The bias in these columns has long been to support forceful Presidential leadership on national security. Even when skeptical about a military intervention, as we were about Haiti in 1994, we saluted once Bill Clinton sent in the troops. We supported Mr. Clinton in Bosnia and Kosovo, and we were among the few who didn't pile on Jimmy Carter after the hostage-rescue fiasco in Iran.
We likewise support Mr. Bush's antiterror leadership, despite the inevitable missteps of planning or WMD intelligence. Whatever lapses may have occurred in the eight months of his Presidency before 9/11, since that day Mr. Bush has had the courage to act, and forcefully. He has turned 20 years of antiterror policy on its head, going on offense by taking the war to the terrorists, toppling state sponsors in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now attempting to "transform" the Middle East through a democratic beachhead in Iraq. This is leadership. (full article)
Friday, March 26, 2004
HUGH HEWITT'S INTERVIEWS SENATOR ZELL MILLER
Chairman of Democrats for Bush Speaks Out!
Miller: I’ve been watching some parts of them. I haven’t had a chance to really watch them like I’d like to but it’s pretty obvious to me that here is a man that wants to blame others for actions that he himself was responsible for overseeing. I mean he was the head of the counter-terrorism for the government for the whole last decade and he has a lot of gall to come along and try to blame others. (full post)
|
Chairman of Democrats for Bush Speaks Out!
Miller: I’ve been watching some parts of them. I haven’t had a chance to really watch them like I’d like to but it’s pretty obvious to me that here is a man that wants to blame others for actions that he himself was responsible for overseeing. I mean he was the head of the counter-terrorism for the government for the whole last decade and he has a lot of gall to come along and try to blame others. (full post)
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
"PAX AMERICANA?"... PART III FROM DAVOS
Counterpoint to Tutu... A Real World Approach
I love the comments by Mustafa Ceric below:
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, keynote speaker Dick Cheney made an appeal for unity with Europe when he spoke of "our common understanding that today’s threats must be met where they are or those threats will come to us."
He also stated that the key to security is through prosperity, adding: "But while we know that security and prosperity are mutually dependent, we must go a step further and ask how they are best achieved. The answer lies in the values of freedom, justice and democracy…Democracies do not breathe the anger and the radicalism that drag down whole societies to export violence. Terrorists do not find fertile recruiting grounds in societies where young people have the right to guide their own destinies and to choose their own leaders."
These two issues of security and freedom provoked the most questions from audience members.
Question: My name is Mustafa Ceric; I am the Grand Mufti of Bosnia. This is a chance for me to speak on behalf of the Bosnian people and to [express] gratitude for what you have done in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please, Mr. Vice President, if you can convey to the American people that we will never forget that you came to Bosnia to help us survive as Muslims in the Balkan Peninsula. We didn’t have oil. You didn’t have an interest to gain. You came to Bosnia-Herzegovina just to show your credibility and your sense of morality.
Besides this I would like to say that I like from your speech that this year we have heard more about freedom than about security. I hope that in the future Americans will talk more about freedom around the world than about security. Thank you very much.
Question: Can you explain to us exactly how people can be picked up anywhere around the world, be put in Guantanamo Bay,…not get the right to trial within a reasonable amount of time, and how you relate that to your comment that compromising values in the name of security is not a good idea and how you link that to a democratic society who believes in the right to a free trial, etc.?
Cheney: These are not people picked up at random. We don’t run up and down the streets of London or Paris or Riyadh saying "He’s a likely looking prospect, let’s put him in Guantanamo." These are people primarily who are picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan trying to kill our troops. They were in combat.
They are treated very humanely. They are not under the provisions of the Geneva Convention. They don’t qualify as prisoners of war, but they’re treated appropriately in terms of medical care, in terms of food and the conditions that exist for them. We have in fact released some as we’ve been able to go through the interrogation process and convince ourselves that for one reason or another they no longer constitute a threat or they no longer have intelligence that would be valuable to us in prosecuting the war on terror. We also have a number of people there who I would describe as deadly enemies who are very open and very direct about wanting to kill Americans the first chance they get…Some of them already have been turned over to their country. Some will be prosecuted and tried. Some will be released.
We’ll sort through them. The International Red Cross has visited there. We’ve been very careful in terms of how we proceed and how we do treat them. But we are faced with a situation where the war continues, where people in some cases have come in to the United States whose only intent is to murder civilians, and under those circumstances and given the rules of warfare, we felt we had no choice but to have a repository for these folks as long as they constitute a threat and as long as the conflict continues.
Question: Vice President Cheney…in your Christmas card…you quoted Benjamin Franklin: "If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" Do you consider the United States to be an empire?
Cheney: First of all, that quote was selected by my wife. She should have to explain why that was on the Christmas card. [laughter] Secondly, it refers to an incident that occurred in our Constitutional Convention when Franklin was speaking about the importance of some recognition of the Almighty in the affairs of man. It should not be taken as some kind of indication that the United States today sees itself as an empire. We don’t. There are some fundamental differences between the United States today—the way we operate, the things we believe in, the way we have conducted ourselves over the course of our history—that distinguish us from what might be identified as an empire.
We do believe very deeply in democratic principles and practices. We have had on occasion in the past the opportunity to deploy massive military forces and to put them into the heart of Europe, into the heart of Asia, and then having done that, to create democracies where previously there had been dictatorships and empires, and then withdraw to our own shores without any aggrandizement in terms of territory or other trappings of empire. I think from the standpoint of history we’re unique in that regard.
So I wouldn’t let the Benjamin Franklin quote be misinterpreted. It’s [not] intended now to talk about the United States as an empire. We don’t see ourselves in that light. We don’t believe we’ve acted that way. I would argue that there are people in the world today who are free of tyranny and have the opportunity to live in freedom and under democracies because of past activities of the United States. Bosnia is one example. If we were a true empire, we would currently preside over a much greater piece of the earth’s surface than we do. That’s not the way we operate.
In Part One, Vice President Cheney spoke about the national deficit and the need for U.N. reform. In Part Two, he gave his assessment of the security threats emanating from Iran and North Korea.
|
Counterpoint to Tutu... A Real World Approach
I love the comments by Mustafa Ceric below:
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, keynote speaker Dick Cheney made an appeal for unity with Europe when he spoke of "our common understanding that today’s threats must be met where they are or those threats will come to us."
He also stated that the key to security is through prosperity, adding: "But while we know that security and prosperity are mutually dependent, we must go a step further and ask how they are best achieved. The answer lies in the values of freedom, justice and democracy…Democracies do not breathe the anger and the radicalism that drag down whole societies to export violence. Terrorists do not find fertile recruiting grounds in societies where young people have the right to guide their own destinies and to choose their own leaders."
These two issues of security and freedom provoked the most questions from audience members.
Question: My name is Mustafa Ceric; I am the Grand Mufti of Bosnia. This is a chance for me to speak on behalf of the Bosnian people and to [express] gratitude for what you have done in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please, Mr. Vice President, if you can convey to the American people that we will never forget that you came to Bosnia to help us survive as Muslims in the Balkan Peninsula. We didn’t have oil. You didn’t have an interest to gain. You came to Bosnia-Herzegovina just to show your credibility and your sense of morality.
Besides this I would like to say that I like from your speech that this year we have heard more about freedom than about security. I hope that in the future Americans will talk more about freedom around the world than about security. Thank you very much.
Question: Can you explain to us exactly how people can be picked up anywhere around the world, be put in Guantanamo Bay,…not get the right to trial within a reasonable amount of time, and how you relate that to your comment that compromising values in the name of security is not a good idea and how you link that to a democratic society who believes in the right to a free trial, etc.?
Cheney: These are not people picked up at random. We don’t run up and down the streets of London or Paris or Riyadh saying "He’s a likely looking prospect, let’s put him in Guantanamo." These are people primarily who are picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan trying to kill our troops. They were in combat.
They are treated very humanely. They are not under the provisions of the Geneva Convention. They don’t qualify as prisoners of war, but they’re treated appropriately in terms of medical care, in terms of food and the conditions that exist for them. We have in fact released some as we’ve been able to go through the interrogation process and convince ourselves that for one reason or another they no longer constitute a threat or they no longer have intelligence that would be valuable to us in prosecuting the war on terror. We also have a number of people there who I would describe as deadly enemies who are very open and very direct about wanting to kill Americans the first chance they get…Some of them already have been turned over to their country. Some will be prosecuted and tried. Some will be released.
We’ll sort through them. The International Red Cross has visited there. We’ve been very careful in terms of how we proceed and how we do treat them. But we are faced with a situation where the war continues, where people in some cases have come in to the United States whose only intent is to murder civilians, and under those circumstances and given the rules of warfare, we felt we had no choice but to have a repository for these folks as long as they constitute a threat and as long as the conflict continues.
Question: Vice President Cheney…in your Christmas card…you quoted Benjamin Franklin: "If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" Do you consider the United States to be an empire?
Cheney: First of all, that quote was selected by my wife. She should have to explain why that was on the Christmas card. [laughter] Secondly, it refers to an incident that occurred in our Constitutional Convention when Franklin was speaking about the importance of some recognition of the Almighty in the affairs of man. It should not be taken as some kind of indication that the United States today sees itself as an empire. We don’t. There are some fundamental differences between the United States today—the way we operate, the things we believe in, the way we have conducted ourselves over the course of our history—that distinguish us from what might be identified as an empire.
We do believe very deeply in democratic principles and practices. We have had on occasion in the past the opportunity to deploy massive military forces and to put them into the heart of Europe, into the heart of Asia, and then having done that, to create democracies where previously there had been dictatorships and empires, and then withdraw to our own shores without any aggrandizement in terms of territory or other trappings of empire. I think from the standpoint of history we’re unique in that regard.
So I wouldn’t let the Benjamin Franklin quote be misinterpreted. It’s [not] intended now to talk about the United States as an empire. We don’t see ourselves in that light. We don’t believe we’ve acted that way. I would argue that there are people in the world today who are free of tyranny and have the opportunity to live in freedom and under democracies because of past activities of the United States. Bosnia is one example. If we were a true empire, we would currently preside over a much greater piece of the earth’s surface than we do. That’s not the way we operate.
In Part One, Vice President Cheney spoke about the national deficit and the need for U.N. reform. In Part Two, he gave his assessment of the security threats emanating from Iran and North Korea.
MORE FROM DAVOS AND CHENEY
"No Nukes"... Part II from AlwaysOn
In his keynote address at the World Economic Forum, Vice President Dick Cheney stated that democratic countries have three fundamental responsibilities: "First, we must confront the ideologies of violence at the source by promoting democracy throughout the greater Middle East and beyond. Second, we must meet these dangers together…Third, when diplomacy fails we must be prepared to face our responsibilities and be willing to use force if necessary. Direct threats require decisive action."
The Vice President cited recent developments in Libya as an example of what can be accomplished by adhering to these three principles, stating that "Our diplomacy with Libya was successful only because our word was credible." After his speech, Cheney was peppered with questions from audience members, some of whom asked about other nations that are building weapons of mass destruction.
Question: Andrew Gowers, Financial Times, London. While the dangers have diminished clearly in Libya and other places, North Korea seems one place where the threat is at the present undiminished. Can you give us your assessment of the prospects for success in your goal to rid North Korea of nuclear weapons?
Cheney: Clearly, the jury is still out with respect to North Korea. We’ve worked very hard, particularly with the Chinese, also the Japanese and the South Koreans and the Russians. The Chinese have become central to that effort. We all agree that it is not in the interest of any of us for the Korean peninsula to become a repository of nuclear weapons. The effort needs to be made…to persuade the North Koreans that they have no choice—if they want to have normal commercial relationships with those of us involved in the enterprise—but to give up their aspirations to acquire nuclear weapons.
We’ve had two meetings in Beijing so far. I would expect there will be more as we continue to move forward. The key is having the Chinese and other nations engaged. Today can I predict the outcome? I can’t. We think we’re approaching this on a sensible basis. This is the right way to proceed, to try to resolve it diplomatically by making it clear to the North Koreans that they really have no option if they want to have any kind of normal relations with the rest of us. And they need those relations in terms of just feeding their people and maintaining some kind of viable economy in the north. They absolutely have to have the support of Japan, South Korea, China, Russia and the United States.
Question: Fred Kemp of the Wall Street Journal. You said the jury is still out on North Korea. I wonder if you can talk about the jury on Iran? Specifically, how would you judge the European efforts right now, the negotiations with Iran? One of the most controversial phrases in Europe was that of "the Axis of Evil." Is Iran still a member of that axis?
Cheney: Well, we were hopeful that the effort by our European friends—the Germans, the French, and the British have been most directly involved—working with the Iranians to try to get the Iranians to agree to a more intrusive inspection regime, which they have now done. We’ll have to see whether or not that produces the desired result. We believe that the Iranians have been actively and aggressively pursuing an effort to develop nuclear weapons. They deny that but there seems to be a good deal of evidence out there to indicate that in fact that’s exactly what they have been doing.
It’s in everybody’s interest, I believe—especially our European friends and allies—to see to it that the Iranians live up to the commitments that they have now made: truly intrusive inspections, a more robust inspection regime administered by the IAEA. And that they keep the commitments they’ve made to the British, German, and French foreign ministers. We’ll do everything we can to support that effort.
Question: Last night, Minister Shimon Peres proposed a four-point approach to creating peace between Palestine and Israel. The thoughts he shared with us were that the U.S. would guarantee the security of a border that those two nations would agree to. Second, that the EU would offer membership to both Israel and Palestine. Third, that both nations would join the Partnership for Peace. And fourth, that they would commit to fight terrorism. I wonder if you would comment on his proposals.
Cheney: I haven’t had an opportunity to look at them or study them in detail. The prospect of guaranteeing borders strikes me as sort of a traditional concept for traditional conflict. And we haven’t really had a traditional conflict. The problem of course has been in large part generated by terrorism—by suicide bombings and so forth. Somehow we’ve got to find a way to take down the structures of terror…if we’re going to get to the point where there can be sufficient trust on both sides to enter into negotiations to resolve the outstanding conflicts, to decide where the border goes, and establish permanent peace.
Shimon Peres is a man I’ve known a long time and I have a lot of respect for him. I’m sure he’s doing everything he can think of to try to move forward in a very, very difficult area. But at this stage, I wouldn’t want to put a stamp of approval on his proposals. We deal with the Prime Minister and the government in power in Israel; they speak for the Israelis. We’re always happy to listen to other ideas and notions, but ultimately, in terms of our interactions with Israel…clearly, the government of Mr. Sharon is the one that we pay most attention to at present.
In Part One, Vice President Cheney spoke about the national deficit and the need for U.N. reform. In Part Three, he fields questions about the foreign nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay, and the role of the U.S. as the leading world power.
|
"No Nukes"... Part II from AlwaysOn
In his keynote address at the World Economic Forum, Vice President Dick Cheney stated that democratic countries have three fundamental responsibilities: "First, we must confront the ideologies of violence at the source by promoting democracy throughout the greater Middle East and beyond. Second, we must meet these dangers together…Third, when diplomacy fails we must be prepared to face our responsibilities and be willing to use force if necessary. Direct threats require decisive action."
The Vice President cited recent developments in Libya as an example of what can be accomplished by adhering to these three principles, stating that "Our diplomacy with Libya was successful only because our word was credible." After his speech, Cheney was peppered with questions from audience members, some of whom asked about other nations that are building weapons of mass destruction.
Question: Andrew Gowers, Financial Times, London. While the dangers have diminished clearly in Libya and other places, North Korea seems one place where the threat is at the present undiminished. Can you give us your assessment of the prospects for success in your goal to rid North Korea of nuclear weapons?
Cheney: Clearly, the jury is still out with respect to North Korea. We’ve worked very hard, particularly with the Chinese, also the Japanese and the South Koreans and the Russians. The Chinese have become central to that effort. We all agree that it is not in the interest of any of us for the Korean peninsula to become a repository of nuclear weapons. The effort needs to be made…to persuade the North Koreans that they have no choice—if they want to have normal commercial relationships with those of us involved in the enterprise—but to give up their aspirations to acquire nuclear weapons.
We’ve had two meetings in Beijing so far. I would expect there will be more as we continue to move forward. The key is having the Chinese and other nations engaged. Today can I predict the outcome? I can’t. We think we’re approaching this on a sensible basis. This is the right way to proceed, to try to resolve it diplomatically by making it clear to the North Koreans that they really have no option if they want to have any kind of normal relations with the rest of us. And they need those relations in terms of just feeding their people and maintaining some kind of viable economy in the north. They absolutely have to have the support of Japan, South Korea, China, Russia and the United States.
Question: Fred Kemp of the Wall Street Journal. You said the jury is still out on North Korea. I wonder if you can talk about the jury on Iran? Specifically, how would you judge the European efforts right now, the negotiations with Iran? One of the most controversial phrases in Europe was that of "the Axis of Evil." Is Iran still a member of that axis?
Cheney: Well, we were hopeful that the effort by our European friends—the Germans, the French, and the British have been most directly involved—working with the Iranians to try to get the Iranians to agree to a more intrusive inspection regime, which they have now done. We’ll have to see whether or not that produces the desired result. We believe that the Iranians have been actively and aggressively pursuing an effort to develop nuclear weapons. They deny that but there seems to be a good deal of evidence out there to indicate that in fact that’s exactly what they have been doing.
It’s in everybody’s interest, I believe—especially our European friends and allies—to see to it that the Iranians live up to the commitments that they have now made: truly intrusive inspections, a more robust inspection regime administered by the IAEA. And that they keep the commitments they’ve made to the British, German, and French foreign ministers. We’ll do everything we can to support that effort.
Question: Last night, Minister Shimon Peres proposed a four-point approach to creating peace between Palestine and Israel. The thoughts he shared with us were that the U.S. would guarantee the security of a border that those two nations would agree to. Second, that the EU would offer membership to both Israel and Palestine. Third, that both nations would join the Partnership for Peace. And fourth, that they would commit to fight terrorism. I wonder if you would comment on his proposals.
Cheney: I haven’t had an opportunity to look at them or study them in detail. The prospect of guaranteeing borders strikes me as sort of a traditional concept for traditional conflict. And we haven’t really had a traditional conflict. The problem of course has been in large part generated by terrorism—by suicide bombings and so forth. Somehow we’ve got to find a way to take down the structures of terror…if we’re going to get to the point where there can be sufficient trust on both sides to enter into negotiations to resolve the outstanding conflicts, to decide where the border goes, and establish permanent peace.
Shimon Peres is a man I’ve known a long time and I have a lot of respect for him. I’m sure he’s doing everything he can think of to try to move forward in a very, very difficult area. But at this stage, I wouldn’t want to put a stamp of approval on his proposals. We deal with the Prime Minister and the government in power in Israel; they speak for the Israelis. We’re always happy to listen to other ideas and notions, but ultimately, in terms of our interactions with Israel…clearly, the government of Mr. Sharon is the one that we pay most attention to at present.
In Part One, Vice President Cheney spoke about the national deficit and the need for U.N. reform. In Part Three, he fields questions about the foreign nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay, and the role of the U.S. as the leading world power.
"CHENEY: DEFICITS DO MATTER"... DAVOS INTERVIEWS
From the AlwaysOn NewsTeam
At the World Economic Forum held in Davos earlier this year, one of the most anticipated keynote speakers was Vice President Dick Cheney. The Vice President began his speech by striking an optimistic note, citing the capture of Saddam Hussein, the adoption of a democratic constitution in Afghanistan, and Libya’s decision to stop pursuing weapons of mass destruction as hopeful signs of progress.
In his speech, Cheney included this assessment of the Muslim world: "We are told that the culture and beliefs of Islamic people are somehow incompatible with the values…of freedom and democracy. These claims are condescending and they are false. Many of the world’s Muslims today live in democratic societies…The desire for freedom is not just American or Western; it is universal."
This remark prompted the first question to be asked by an audience member in the open session held after Cheney’s speech:
Question: I’m…from Oman. Thank you for those warm words about the Islamic and the Arab world. May we ask, Mr. Vice President, would you be so kind as to ensure that they are [conveyed] to Secretary Ashcroft and those who work for him, so that visitors from our region are treated with greater discretion and sensitivity when they visit your wonderful country? Thank you sir.
Cheney: I will certainly be happy to pass on messages to my colleague, John Ashcroft. There’s no question that we have tried to improve and tighten up our entry and exit procedures in the United States. We are aware that there are still glitches in the system; that it is sometimes an onerous process. And we’re doing our best to improve upon it.
Question: Fred Bergsten from the Institute for International Economics. I think it’s fair to say there has been enormous admiration expressed here this week about the strength of the U.S. economy, particularly the recovery that is now clearly underway. But there has been one nagging question about the sustainability of that recovery and that relates to the outlook for the U.S. budget position. In fact, there have been several questions about a comment made by your former colleague Paul O’Neill in his new book, when he quotes that famous meeting that he and Chairman Greenspan had with you, when he recounts you as saying "President Reagan showed that budget deficits don’t matter." Could you comment as to whether that is the philosophy and how you intend to overcome that concern?
Cheney: I guess the way you could look at that whole exercise is that I’m not the best personnel officer in the world. [laughter] The President took my advice on Secretary of the Treasury…of course as part of that he put me in charge of the search for the Vice President and that came out in unexpected ways as well. I believe deficits do matter, but also I am a great believer in the policy we followed. That is to say that it was very important for us to reduce the tax burden on the American economy by way of stimulating growth. The progress we see today with respect to our economy is directly related to that.
Paul did not support the tax cuts that I favored and that the President ultimately decided upon. And that really goes to the heart of the debate. I do think deficits matter; they matter in the long term. We do have to worry about them. Our plan, as the President laid out the other night in the State of the Union speech, is to reduce the deficit in half over the next five years. I think we’ll get there.
If you look at the deficit today, while it’s large, is not that large from a historic standpoint as a percentage of GDP. We think it is manageable, especially given the state we’re in. We’re engaged in a military conflict; we’ve had to increase defense spending. We inherited a recession which caused a falloff in government revenues. So for a lot of reasons, I don’t find it surprising that we have a deficit.
But in terms of trying to move back to a balanced budget, that clearly will be our long-term goal and objective, but we would not now move immediately to a balanced budget at the cost of adequately funding our military operations or having the kind of pro-growth policies that we think are vital to generating long-term revenues for the economy. We think we have it calibrated about right. I wouldn’t believe everything I read in Paul O’Neill’s book.
Question: We spoke yesterday about U.N. reform. You hinted at it in your own speech. Could you share with us what should be done in order to make the global institutional framework more effective?
Cheney: I could get into a lot of trouble right here, I’m sure. Well, from time to time there has been discussion about the need to modernize and update the U.N. The arrangements were settled on in San Francisco in 1945, nearly sixty years ago. We’ve got certain anomalies, I think, in that the structure of the United Nations as it’s currently constituted doesn’t necessarily fit with the way the world works and is organized today. There are major powers that are not represented or don’t have as much influence at the U.N. as they might have if this were 1945 and we were establishing those arrangements. I don’t want to get into any more detail than that. I don’t want to recommend specific changes on a national basis. Those are the kinds of issues that need to be worked out internationally.
In Part Two, Cheney gives his assessment of the security threats emanating from Iran and North Korea, and comments on Shimon Peres’ proposals for peace in the Middle East.
|
From the AlwaysOn NewsTeam
At the World Economic Forum held in Davos earlier this year, one of the most anticipated keynote speakers was Vice President Dick Cheney. The Vice President began his speech by striking an optimistic note, citing the capture of Saddam Hussein, the adoption of a democratic constitution in Afghanistan, and Libya’s decision to stop pursuing weapons of mass destruction as hopeful signs of progress.
In his speech, Cheney included this assessment of the Muslim world: "We are told that the culture and beliefs of Islamic people are somehow incompatible with the values…of freedom and democracy. These claims are condescending and they are false. Many of the world’s Muslims today live in democratic societies…The desire for freedom is not just American or Western; it is universal."
This remark prompted the first question to be asked by an audience member in the open session held after Cheney’s speech:
Question: I’m…from Oman. Thank you for those warm words about the Islamic and the Arab world. May we ask, Mr. Vice President, would you be so kind as to ensure that they are [conveyed] to Secretary Ashcroft and those who work for him, so that visitors from our region are treated with greater discretion and sensitivity when they visit your wonderful country? Thank you sir.
Cheney: I will certainly be happy to pass on messages to my colleague, John Ashcroft. There’s no question that we have tried to improve and tighten up our entry and exit procedures in the United States. We are aware that there are still glitches in the system; that it is sometimes an onerous process. And we’re doing our best to improve upon it.
Question: Fred Bergsten from the Institute for International Economics. I think it’s fair to say there has been enormous admiration expressed here this week about the strength of the U.S. economy, particularly the recovery that is now clearly underway. But there has been one nagging question about the sustainability of that recovery and that relates to the outlook for the U.S. budget position. In fact, there have been several questions about a comment made by your former colleague Paul O’Neill in his new book, when he quotes that famous meeting that he and Chairman Greenspan had with you, when he recounts you as saying "President Reagan showed that budget deficits don’t matter." Could you comment as to whether that is the philosophy and how you intend to overcome that concern?
Cheney: I guess the way you could look at that whole exercise is that I’m not the best personnel officer in the world. [laughter] The President took my advice on Secretary of the Treasury…of course as part of that he put me in charge of the search for the Vice President and that came out in unexpected ways as well. I believe deficits do matter, but also I am a great believer in the policy we followed. That is to say that it was very important for us to reduce the tax burden on the American economy by way of stimulating growth. The progress we see today with respect to our economy is directly related to that.
Paul did not support the tax cuts that I favored and that the President ultimately decided upon. And that really goes to the heart of the debate. I do think deficits matter; they matter in the long term. We do have to worry about them. Our plan, as the President laid out the other night in the State of the Union speech, is to reduce the deficit in half over the next five years. I think we’ll get there.
If you look at the deficit today, while it’s large, is not that large from a historic standpoint as a percentage of GDP. We think it is manageable, especially given the state we’re in. We’re engaged in a military conflict; we’ve had to increase defense spending. We inherited a recession which caused a falloff in government revenues. So for a lot of reasons, I don’t find it surprising that we have a deficit.
But in terms of trying to move back to a balanced budget, that clearly will be our long-term goal and objective, but we would not now move immediately to a balanced budget at the cost of adequately funding our military operations or having the kind of pro-growth policies that we think are vital to generating long-term revenues for the economy. We think we have it calibrated about right. I wouldn’t believe everything I read in Paul O’Neill’s book.
Question: We spoke yesterday about U.N. reform. You hinted at it in your own speech. Could you share with us what should be done in order to make the global institutional framework more effective?
Cheney: I could get into a lot of trouble right here, I’m sure. Well, from time to time there has been discussion about the need to modernize and update the U.N. The arrangements were settled on in San Francisco in 1945, nearly sixty years ago. We’ve got certain anomalies, I think, in that the structure of the United Nations as it’s currently constituted doesn’t necessarily fit with the way the world works and is organized today. There are major powers that are not represented or don’t have as much influence at the U.N. as they might have if this were 1945 and we were establishing those arrangements. I don’t want to get into any more detail than that. I don’t want to recommend specific changes on a national basis. Those are the kinds of issues that need to be worked out internationally.
In Part Two, Cheney gives his assessment of the security threats emanating from Iran and North Korea, and comments on Shimon Peres’ proposals for peace in the Middle East.
EU HITS MICROSOFT WITH $613 MILLION FINE
Related to what I blogged about before. Here's the article from News.com:
The European Union on Wednesday issued its ruling in the long-running case against Microsoft, fining the American software giant $613 million, the heaviest punishment in any European competition case to date. (full article)
|
Related to what I blogged about before. Here's the article from News.com:
The European Union on Wednesday issued its ruling in the long-running case against Microsoft, fining the American software giant $613 million, the heaviest punishment in any European competition case to date. (full article)
MSNBC ANTI-BUSH?
Funny Post by Glenn Reynolds
"Now he's being blamed for not invading Afghanistan in 1998! Here's the relevant passage from MSNBC:
The report revealed that in a previously undisclosed secret diplomatic mission, Saudi Arabia won a commitment from the Taliban to expel bin Laden in 1998. But a clash between the Taliban’s leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, and Saudi officials scuttled the arrangement, and Bush did not follow up.
Damn him -- governing Texas while Rome burned! Why didn't he send the Texas Rangers to finish off Bin Laden? ("One mullah, one Ranger!") Sheesh. Can you say "Freudian slip?" (full post)
Hahaha... Yeah, I guess Bush could have sent in those Texas Rangers. Yo! Chuck! Why didn't you go over there and kick bin Laden's ass?
|
Funny Post by Glenn Reynolds
"Now he's being blamed for not invading Afghanistan in 1998! Here's the relevant passage from MSNBC:
The report revealed that in a previously undisclosed secret diplomatic mission, Saudi Arabia won a commitment from the Taliban to expel bin Laden in 1998. But a clash between the Taliban’s leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, and Saudi officials scuttled the arrangement, and Bush did not follow up.
Damn him -- governing Texas while Rome burned! Why didn't he send the Texas Rangers to finish off Bin Laden? ("One mullah, one Ranger!") Sheesh. Can you say "Freudian slip?" (full post)
Hahaha... Yeah, I guess Bush could have sent in those Texas Rangers. Yo! Chuck! Why didn't you go over there and kick bin Laden's ass?
FURTHER ANALYSIS OF KERRY JR.
Instapundit has a Great Analysis of Clarke
"This guy's working for Rove. By the time he's done imploding, Bush will have discredited the media and all his critics. It's the only thing that makes sense.
The other possibility is that Clarke held an important national security job for years while being dumb as a post, so dumb that he would write a book making explosive accusations against the White House while knowing -- or forgetting? -- that all sorts of contradictory evidence was on the record and bound to come out. Otherwise, wouldn't he at least have tried to explain this stuff up front?" (full post)
|
Instapundit has a Great Analysis of Clarke
"This guy's working for Rove. By the time he's done imploding, Bush will have discredited the media and all his critics. It's the only thing that makes sense.
The other possibility is that Clarke held an important national security job for years while being dumb as a post, so dumb that he would write a book making explosive accusations against the White House while knowing -- or forgetting? -- that all sorts of contradictory evidence was on the record and bound to come out. Otherwise, wouldn't he at least have tried to explain this stuff up front?" (full post)
"THE ALBRIGHT DECEPTION"
From Hugh Hewitt... 9/11 Commission Hearings
"This is repugnant in the depth of its deception and sophistry. Asked tough questions, Albright shifted the subject from what the Clinton Administration didn't do and then to the Bush Administration abandonment of Clinton's North Korean and Balkan policies (thank goodness we gave up on the benefits of being hornswaggled by Kim Jong Il) to leave the impression, implicit only, that the Bush Administration abandoned anti-al Qaeda initiatives as well. Initiatives like not trying to take him out when the drone spotted him in the fall? This is a hearing for the historians to mull over, and when they do, it will not go well for Madame Secretary." (full post)
Good Question by Hugh:
"Today's testimony by Madeline Albright was among the most preposterous such appearance by an American official who formerly held high office in the executive that I can recall. It was so transparently self-serving, so obviously an attempt to dodge the culpability for having been part of the Clinton-Gore-Berger-Clarke-Daschle-Biden-Gephardt team that failed, and failed, and failed to act to stop bin Laden's growing fury and capabilities, that it will persuade no one who is serious about the subject matter...
As you read this stuff, keep in mind the CNN video that has Ben-Veniste so upset. And hope that someone asks Ms. Albright or any of her colleagues: "To the best of your ability, and realizing it is a hypothetical, please tell us if you think Al Gore, had he been elected, would have prevented the 9/11 attacks, and if so, how?" Of course he couldn't have. Those attacks were operational long before January 20, 2001." (full post)
|
From Hugh Hewitt... 9/11 Commission Hearings
"This is repugnant in the depth of its deception and sophistry. Asked tough questions, Albright shifted the subject from what the Clinton Administration didn't do and then to the Bush Administration abandonment of Clinton's North Korean and Balkan policies (thank goodness we gave up on the benefits of being hornswaggled by Kim Jong Il) to leave the impression, implicit only, that the Bush Administration abandoned anti-al Qaeda initiatives as well. Initiatives like not trying to take him out when the drone spotted him in the fall? This is a hearing for the historians to mull over, and when they do, it will not go well for Madame Secretary." (full post)
Good Question by Hugh:
"Today's testimony by Madeline Albright was among the most preposterous such appearance by an American official who formerly held high office in the executive that I can recall. It was so transparently self-serving, so obviously an attempt to dodge the culpability for having been part of the Clinton-Gore-Berger-Clarke-Daschle-Biden-Gephardt team that failed, and failed, and failed to act to stop bin Laden's growing fury and capabilities, that it will persuade no one who is serious about the subject matter...
As you read this stuff, keep in mind the CNN video that has Ben-Veniste so upset. And hope that someone asks Ms. Albright or any of her colleagues: "To the best of your ability, and realizing it is a hypothetical, please tell us if you think Al Gore, had he been elected, would have prevented the 9/11 attacks, and if so, how?" Of course he couldn't have. Those attacks were operational long before January 20, 2001." (full post)
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
MORE ON RICHARD CLARKE... HOW MUCH WAS HE OFFERED?
Turncoat After Praising Bush... Taking Lessons from Kerry
"Clarke Praises Bush in Resignation Letter":
"It has been an enormous privilege to serve you these last 24 months," said the Jan. 20, 2003, letter from Clarke to Bush. "I will always remember the courage, determination, calm, and leadership you demonstrated on September 11th."
Updated quotes and comments from Instapundit:
Richard Clarke, the country’s first counter-terrorism czar, told me in an interview at his home in Arlington, Virginia, that he wasn’t particularly surprised that the Bush Administration’s efforts to find bin Laden had been stymied by political problems. He had seen such efforts fail before. Clarke, who retired from public service in February and is now a private consultant on security matters, has served every President since Ronald Reagan. He has won a reputation as a tireless advocate for action against Al Qaeda. Clarke emphasized that the C.I.A. director, George Tenet, President Bush, and, before him, President Clinton were all deeply committed to stopping bin Laden; nonetheless, Clarke said, their best efforts had been doomed by bureaucratic clashes, caution, and incessant problems with Pakistan."
--Richard Clarke, per the August 4th 2003 issue of the New Yorker.
"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."
--Richard Clarke, on 60 Minutes, March 21, 2004.
|
Turncoat After Praising Bush... Taking Lessons from Kerry
"Clarke Praises Bush in Resignation Letter":
"It has been an enormous privilege to serve you these last 24 months," said the Jan. 20, 2003, letter from Clarke to Bush. "I will always remember the courage, determination, calm, and leadership you demonstrated on September 11th."
Updated quotes and comments from Instapundit:
Richard Clarke, the country’s first counter-terrorism czar, told me in an interview at his home in Arlington, Virginia, that he wasn’t particularly surprised that the Bush Administration’s efforts to find bin Laden had been stymied by political problems. He had seen such efforts fail before. Clarke, who retired from public service in February and is now a private consultant on security matters, has served every President since Ronald Reagan. He has won a reputation as a tireless advocate for action against Al Qaeda. Clarke emphasized that the C.I.A. director, George Tenet, President Bush, and, before him, President Clinton were all deeply committed to stopping bin Laden; nonetheless, Clarke said, their best efforts had been doomed by bureaucratic clashes, caution, and incessant problems with Pakistan."
--Richard Clarke, per the August 4th 2003 issue of the New Yorker.
"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."
--Richard Clarke, on 60 Minutes, March 21, 2004.
Monday, March 22, 2004
MORE ON RICHARD CLARKE
From Taranto... Last One for the Day
The Clarke Kerfuffle
Richard Clarke, a former antiterrorism adviser to the White House, has gotten a lot of attention for some bizarre claims about the Bush administration's response to Sept. 11. Clarke appeared on "60 Minutes" last night, and here's the CBS News Web site's account of what he had to say:
After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.
"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to [Lesley] Stahl. "And we all said . . . no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And [Donald] Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.
"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking. . . ."
Perhaps it escaped Clarke's notice, but less than a month after Sept. 11, the U.S. did begin bombing Afghanistan, while the military effort to liberate Iraq didn't get under way until a year and a half later. So just what Clarke is complaining about? Well, we found an October 2003 quote, from a guest on PBS's "NewsHour," that sums it up nicely: "What people are complaining about is that there is contention and debate and analysis and confrontation. I think that's better than trying to sweep everything under the rug." The guest was none other than Richard Clarke.
In a February 2003 article for SecurityFocus.net, George Smith reported that Clarke had a rather unimpressive record when it comes to terrorism:
In 1986, as a State Department bureaucrat with pull, he came up with a plan to battle terrorism and subvert Muammar Qaddafi by having SR-71s produce sonic booms over Libya. This was to be accompanied by rafts washing onto the sands of Tripoli, the aim of which was to create the illusion of a coming attack. When this nonsense was revealed, it created embarrassment for the Reagan administration and was buried.
In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan." The pharmaceutical factory was, apparently, just a pharmaceutical factory, and we now know how impressed bin Laden was by cruise missiles that miss.
Clarke also "devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing," Smith writes. "While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict."
In an article last week for Time, Clarke offered this brilliant advice: "In addition to placing more cameras on our subway platforms, maybe we should be asking why the terrorists hate us." Blogger John Hinderaker notes that Clarke is jointly teaching a course at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government with Rand Beers, a foreign-policy adviser to the Kerry campaign. All of which leaves us inclined to take anything this guy says with a grain of salt.
|
From Taranto... Last One for the Day
The Clarke Kerfuffle
Richard Clarke, a former antiterrorism adviser to the White House, has gotten a lot of attention for some bizarre claims about the Bush administration's response to Sept. 11. Clarke appeared on "60 Minutes" last night, and here's the CBS News Web site's account of what he had to say:
After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.
"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to [Lesley] Stahl. "And we all said . . . no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And [Donald] Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.
"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking. . . ."
Perhaps it escaped Clarke's notice, but less than a month after Sept. 11, the U.S. did begin bombing Afghanistan, while the military effort to liberate Iraq didn't get under way until a year and a half later. So just what Clarke is complaining about? Well, we found an October 2003 quote, from a guest on PBS's "NewsHour," that sums it up nicely: "What people are complaining about is that there is contention and debate and analysis and confrontation. I think that's better than trying to sweep everything under the rug." The guest was none other than Richard Clarke.
In a February 2003 article for SecurityFocus.net, George Smith reported that Clarke had a rather unimpressive record when it comes to terrorism:
In 1986, as a State Department bureaucrat with pull, he came up with a plan to battle terrorism and subvert Muammar Qaddafi by having SR-71s produce sonic booms over Libya. This was to be accompanied by rafts washing onto the sands of Tripoli, the aim of which was to create the illusion of a coming attack. When this nonsense was revealed, it created embarrassment for the Reagan administration and was buried.
In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan." The pharmaceutical factory was, apparently, just a pharmaceutical factory, and we now know how impressed bin Laden was by cruise missiles that miss.
Clarke also "devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing," Smith writes. "While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict."
In an article last week for Time, Clarke offered this brilliant advice: "In addition to placing more cameras on our subway platforms, maybe we should be asking why the terrorists hate us." Blogger John Hinderaker notes that Clarke is jointly teaching a course at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government with Rand Beers, a foreign-policy adviser to the Kerry campaign. All of which leaves us inclined to take anything this guy says with a grain of salt.
SILLY TERRORIST MOTIVATION THEORY... TUTU IS DUMB
As My Mother Says, "Low Intelligence, Dear"
Again from Taranto:
South Africa's Jerry Falwell
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1984, was in America last week, where he made the rounds of the cable talk shows. We caught him on MSNBC's "Hardball" with Chris Matthews, and while he was once a leader in a worthy cause, his views on the threats facing the world today are utterly fatuous. He denounced not only the liberation of Iraq but the liberation of Afghanistan, and he espoused a novel theory as to what motivates the terrorists of al Qaeda:
Tutu: It is quite crucial for us to want to look at what are the root causes that enable or make people be ready to engage in desperate acts.
Matthews: What do you think they are?
Tutu: Well, I believe myself that there's no way in which we are likely to win the war against terrorism, as long as you've got conditions of poverty, of disease, of ignorance that can make people so desperate that they believe the only options they have are to engage in acts of that kind.
Matthews: But the people who struck us on September 11 were people who were reasonably well educated. They were technical people. Maybe they didn't have Ph.D.s, but they had educations that would have allowed them to make a living quite well in the Western world.
Tutu: Now, the point is, if precisely people of that sort who look at the inequities of the international economic order--I mean, to think just now that you say to the developing world, in order for you to make it, produce more. So you sell. And they do produce more.
But then the developed world has massive, massive agricultural subsidies that ensure that farmers in those rich countries can produce their stuff cheaply. And there are high tariffs that prevent the developing country from being able to sell their goods. And so you say, these guys are playing a game and they make the rules for the game and they are the referees in this games. It is so lopsided that anyone seeking to be a normal person realizes that the odds are stacked against us so horrendously that people will say, I am ready to do anything to get out of this trap.
We sympathize with Tutu's criticism of Western trade policies, but if he thinks Osama bin Laden and his followers are agitating for free trade, he's nuts. It's reminiscent of Jerry Falwell's comment just after Sept. 11 that the attack was the fault of "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way," or George McGovern's suggestion in a December 2002 article that terrorists are angry at America for not adopting a McGovernite foreign policy.
After McGovern's article appeared, we dubbed this "vicarious terrorism": people who should know better claiming that if only we embrace their pet cause, it will appease the enemies of civilization. Falwell at least had the decency to apologize for his remarks. We're not holding our breath waiting for McGovern and Tutu to do the same.
|
As My Mother Says, "Low Intelligence, Dear"
Again from Taranto:
South Africa's Jerry Falwell
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1984, was in America last week, where he made the rounds of the cable talk shows. We caught him on MSNBC's "Hardball" with Chris Matthews, and while he was once a leader in a worthy cause, his views on the threats facing the world today are utterly fatuous. He denounced not only the liberation of Iraq but the liberation of Afghanistan, and he espoused a novel theory as to what motivates the terrorists of al Qaeda:
Tutu: It is quite crucial for us to want to look at what are the root causes that enable or make people be ready to engage in desperate acts.
Matthews: What do you think they are?
Tutu: Well, I believe myself that there's no way in which we are likely to win the war against terrorism, as long as you've got conditions of poverty, of disease, of ignorance that can make people so desperate that they believe the only options they have are to engage in acts of that kind.
Matthews: But the people who struck us on September 11 were people who were reasonably well educated. They were technical people. Maybe they didn't have Ph.D.s, but they had educations that would have allowed them to make a living quite well in the Western world.
Tutu: Now, the point is, if precisely people of that sort who look at the inequities of the international economic order--I mean, to think just now that you say to the developing world, in order for you to make it, produce more. So you sell. And they do produce more.
But then the developed world has massive, massive agricultural subsidies that ensure that farmers in those rich countries can produce their stuff cheaply. And there are high tariffs that prevent the developing country from being able to sell their goods. And so you say, these guys are playing a game and they make the rules for the game and they are the referees in this games. It is so lopsided that anyone seeking to be a normal person realizes that the odds are stacked against us so horrendously that people will say, I am ready to do anything to get out of this trap.
We sympathize with Tutu's criticism of Western trade policies, but if he thinks Osama bin Laden and his followers are agitating for free trade, he's nuts. It's reminiscent of Jerry Falwell's comment just after Sept. 11 that the attack was the fault of "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way," or George McGovern's suggestion in a December 2002 article that terrorists are angry at America for not adopting a McGovernite foreign policy.
After McGovern's article appeared, we dubbed this "vicarious terrorism": people who should know better claiming that if only we embrace their pet cause, it will appease the enemies of civilization. Falwell at least had the decency to apologize for his remarks. We're not holding our breath waiting for McGovern and Tutu to do the same.
TYPICAL FRENCH... ANTI-ISRAEL
From James Taranto... Best of the Web
Lots of good stuff from Taranto today. Here's the first one:
Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the genocidal maniac who serves as Hamas's "spiritual leader," is dead, killed by an Israeli missile strike. Yassin was quite a prolific murderer. "Over the past 3 1/2 years, . . . Hamas has, in 425 attacks, killed 377 Israelis and wounded 2076," notes the Jerusalem Post. "Hamas perpetrated 52 suicide attacks, in which 288 people were killed and 1646 were wounded."
.....
Reuters quotes France's Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin: "France condemns the action against Sheikh Yassin. At a time when it is important to mobilize for the relaunch of the peace process, such acts can only fuel the cycle of violence." Of course, if Hamas hadn't killed hundreds of innocent people, Israel would have had no cause to kill Yassin. But there are limits. "Germany avoided condemnation of the helicopter rocket attack," the "news" service notes. We suppose it would be awkward for Germany, of all countries, to mourn the death of a mass killer of Jews.
Meanwhile, London's Guardian reports that "Yasser Arafat has apologised to the father of a young Arab man who was shot dead in Jerusalem in a botched attempt by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade to murder a Jewish settler":
George Khoury, a 20-year-old economics student at Jerusalem's Hebrew University and the son of a prominent lawyer, was jogging through a neighbourhood mostly populated by Jews when gunmen shot him in the head, neck and stomach on Friday night.
Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.
As far as we know, European leaders have issued no outraged condemnations of Khoury's murder. To guys like de Villepin, it would seem, Arab lives are cheap unless they are devoted to the murder of Jews.
|
From James Taranto... Best of the Web
Lots of good stuff from Taranto today. Here's the first one:
Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the genocidal maniac who serves as Hamas's "spiritual leader," is dead, killed by an Israeli missile strike. Yassin was quite a prolific murderer. "Over the past 3 1/2 years, . . . Hamas has, in 425 attacks, killed 377 Israelis and wounded 2076," notes the Jerusalem Post. "Hamas perpetrated 52 suicide attacks, in which 288 people were killed and 1646 were wounded."
.....
Reuters quotes France's Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin: "France condemns the action against Sheikh Yassin. At a time when it is important to mobilize for the relaunch of the peace process, such acts can only fuel the cycle of violence." Of course, if Hamas hadn't killed hundreds of innocent people, Israel would have had no cause to kill Yassin. But there are limits. "Germany avoided condemnation of the helicopter rocket attack," the "news" service notes. We suppose it would be awkward for Germany, of all countries, to mourn the death of a mass killer of Jews.
Meanwhile, London's Guardian reports that "Yasser Arafat has apologised to the father of a young Arab man who was shot dead in Jerusalem in a botched attempt by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade to murder a Jewish settler":
George Khoury, a 20-year-old economics student at Jerusalem's Hebrew University and the son of a prominent lawyer, was jogging through a neighbourhood mostly populated by Jews when gunmen shot him in the head, neck and stomach on Friday night.
Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.
As far as we know, European leaders have issued no outraged condemnations of Khoury's murder. To guys like de Villepin, it would seem, Arab lives are cheap unless they are devoted to the murder of Jews.
SOUTH KOREAN PRESIDENT'S IMPEACHMENT
Foolish and Stupid Move by the Opposition
Got this email and article from my friend, Mingi, at Time Magazine:
"Below is the best op-ed piece on Korea I've read to date HANDS DOWN. Whether a lefty or a righty, it would be difficult for anyone knowledgeable of Korean affairs to disagree with Eberstadt on this one. Also, the ending is ABSOLUTELY sweet!"
I mentioned when the impeachment occurred over a week ago that I would write my response, but I just didn't give it much thought because it was very straight-forward and clear to me and I didn't think about it again until Mingi's email. The basis of President Roh's impeachment was weak and not justified. No matter how much I think Roh to be an idiot, not qualified for such an office, and taking a very dangerous approach with North Korea, the opposition parties in South Korea set a horrible precedent by impeaching their president based on a weak violation of campaign law (stumping for his intended political party, the Uri Party, and the National Elections Commission ruled it was illegal but a minor infraction and not warranting criminal charges).
As public officials in a modern democracy, the standards they create have to bear the weight of public opinion and history. The members of the Grand National and Millennium Democratic parties rushed into the impeachment process without truly thinking of the consequences. It is just a petty game to them? Do they know what responsibility they hold before their country and its future?
Even on a practical level, what were they thinking? Even if Roh suffered from very low approval ratings (~30%), did they even ask or poll their constituents what they thought if they moved to impeach the president based on his recent campaign violations? Obviously not since almost 80% of South Koreans thought the impeachment was wrong. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
In the article by Nicholas Eberstadt below, he brings up a great point on how this can affect South Korea's relationship with North Korea and the hope of reunification. There should be a definite change of position within South Korea's foreign policy. The "sunshine" policy stands on weaker ground and if there was any hope of it in being effective I believe it has been washed away by the tide of the recent impeachment revealing the weak frame that holds South Korea's democracy together. A glimmer of hope from the "sunshine" approach can reach for a possible solution a hundred years from now, but I believe reality will soon dictate a stronger position that will lead towards a possible reunification under South Korea's democracy - hopefully strengthen by then - within my lifetime.
Democracy's Demons
An impeachment exposes the sordid opportunism of South Korean politics
BY NICHOLAS EBERSTADT
TIME MAGAZINE
"A republic, if you can keep it." That was Benjamin Franklin's response to an inquiry at the end of the 1787 Constitutional Convention about the type of government the founders of the U.S. had just created. The remark is usually cited as an example of Franklin's renowned wit, but he was deadly serious. He understood the experiment in constitutional governance to be a delicate thing: one that is difficult to maintain, and easy to destroy. We are reminded of this once again as we observe the sad and tawdry constitutional crisis that has suddenly engulfed South Korea because of the March 12 impeachment of President Roh Moo Hyun.
South Korea's foreign allies, including the U.S. government, are bravely pretending that the impeachment drama unfolding in Seoul is unexceptional and is perhaps even proof of South Korea's "strong, vibrant democracy." Let's not kid ourselves. By voting to strip President Roh of power and leaving it to the country's Constitutional Court to determine his ultimate
political fate, South Korea's National Assembly has demonstrated the frightful weakness of the country's purported democracy and has dealt that already frail structure another grave blow from which it is not yet clear it can recover.
To date, South Koreans have not been famously successful at keeping their republics. They have had six of them since the formal establishment of the modern South Korean state in 1948 and they are currently living under a Republic of Korea constitution that is in its ninth version. And yet many Koreans and foreign observers had hoped the demons that possessed the South Korean body politic were finally exorcised back in 1987, when the country held its first open and competitive presidential election heralding a transition from de facto military rule to a framework of constitutional
democracy.
Three subsequent presidential elections seemed to substantiate those hopes. The victor of the 1992 contest, Kim Young Sam, was a lifelong civilian politician, not a military surrogate. The 1997 election went to Kim Dae Jung, a lifelong dissident politician. And the 2002 election led to the inauguration of Roh, a human-rights lawyer and outspoken critic of the "old
style" of South Korean cronyism.
But the spectacle of Roh's impeachment puts paid to any notion that the country's constitutional democracy has grown sturdy roots. The National Assembly is dominated by two opposition parties that loathe the current occupant of the Blue House. They voted to suspend the elected President on the flimsiest of pretexts. Officially, the offenses for which Roh is to be tried, and for which he is already being punished, are some otherwise innocuous comments about the upcoming April 15 National Assembly election. Roh, who had renounced his membership of the ruling Millennium Democratic Party last fall, let it be known that he hoped candidates from the Uri Party would do well, and that he thought he might eventually join that organization. Lawmakers were shocked! What the President would dare sully the nation's pristine electoral process through such nefarious interference. Their reading of the law held Roh's words to be a violation of election rules preventing the President from using the power of his office to influence parliamentary contests. The ploy was utterly transparent, but the written constitution gave them all the formal authority they needed to proceed with the motion.
The truth is that the impeachment had nothing to do with the rule of law. The country's National Election Commission had already ruled Roh's faux pas to be a minor one. However, what the National Assembly provided was a perfect example of "rule by law", the opportunistic, unprincipled and entirely situational use of legal statutes by the powerful to gain political advantage. Such a practice has been the bane of unscrupulous Confucian governments throughout East Asian history.
With this patent misuse of its important right and responsibility, the National Assembly has exposed the weakness in contemporary South Korean democracy. If you or I learned that a beloved friend or relative had been found wandering naked in the street, our first reaction would probably be of horror, but then we might think back and recognize that there had been warning signs of the impending breakdown. So it is with South Korea's democratic system: signs of trouble were there, whether or not we cared to take them seriously. We might now remember how former President Kim Dae
Jung, that avowed champion of openness, law and democracy, launched tax probes against local media, a move many saw as an attempt to intimidate publications that criticized his policies. (In 1999, the International Press Institute in Vienna even sent the future Nobel Laureate a letter begging him to desist from his campaign against South Korea's free press.) Then there was the acclaimed Kim Dae Jung-Kim Jong Il summit in Pyongyang in June 2000, the supposedly historic "peace breakthrough" that later turned out to have been purchased furtively and illegally, with a price tag of at least $100 million, through the transfer of South Korean taxpayer money to the Dear Leader's bank accounts.
Roh's triumph in the December 2002 presidential plebiscite was itself testimony to the weakness of South Korea's democracy. His main selling point was not his allergy to the U.S. (genuine as that may be), but rather his outsider's resume his manifest lack of experience in Seoul's payola-driven politics, a system that the great majority of voters already viewed with distrust and disdain. Once in office, Roh's amateurish and inconstant performance, as well as his own cynical attempts to game the system, did little to allay popular misgivings about the health of the democracy. Recall that, after barely eight months in office, a frustrated and tactically outclassed Roh toyed with pulling a coup d'etat against himself by demanding an extra-constitutional referendum to back his policies and threatening to resign from the presidency if the vote didn't turn out to his liking.
In the event, Roh himself quickly dropped the idea of exiting from office before his term was up. His enemies did not follow suit. Now the impeachment process must grind forward, and from the standpoint of the endangered democratic system, none of the possible outcomes are reassuring. On one hand, the court may rule that Roh has violated his oath of office and must step down, in which case a perilously low threshold for rejecting the legitimacy of the people's highest elected representative will have been established for all future leaders of South Korea. On the other hand, the court may let Roh keep his job. Then the public will be forced to choose between a President they know to be too small for his office, and a National Assembly they no longer trust.
There is, of course, a winner in this tragedy. His name is Kim Jong Il. With South Korea in political turmoil, North Korea's degree of freedom in its nuclear confrontation with the Western world expands quite nicely. In the immediate future, the North need no longer worry about coordinated international efforts to press Pyongyang for nuclear compliance, because those efforts would inevitably require coordination with the now dysfunctional government in Seoul.
Over the longer term, the South's current travails will only reinforce the North's appetite for an unconditional Korean reunification, in the North's terms. For nearly six decades, North Korean doctrine has maintained that the South Korean political system is riddled with rot, tottering under its own contradictions and ready for a fall. That propaganda sounds uncomfortably plausible today. For their own sake, and the world's, South Koreans must prove Kim Jong Il wrong. It is still their republic, if they can keep it.
Nicholas Eberstadt holds the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at Washington, D.C.'s American Enterprise Institute
|
Foolish and Stupid Move by the Opposition
Got this email and article from my friend, Mingi, at Time Magazine:
"Below is the best op-ed piece on Korea I've read to date HANDS DOWN. Whether a lefty or a righty, it would be difficult for anyone knowledgeable of Korean affairs to disagree with Eberstadt on this one. Also, the ending is ABSOLUTELY sweet!"
I mentioned when the impeachment occurred over a week ago that I would write my response, but I just didn't give it much thought because it was very straight-forward and clear to me and I didn't think about it again until Mingi's email. The basis of President Roh's impeachment was weak and not justified. No matter how much I think Roh to be an idiot, not qualified for such an office, and taking a very dangerous approach with North Korea, the opposition parties in South Korea set a horrible precedent by impeaching their president based on a weak violation of campaign law (stumping for his intended political party, the Uri Party, and the National Elections Commission ruled it was illegal but a minor infraction and not warranting criminal charges).
As public officials in a modern democracy, the standards they create have to bear the weight of public opinion and history. The members of the Grand National and Millennium Democratic parties rushed into the impeachment process without truly thinking of the consequences. It is just a petty game to them? Do they know what responsibility they hold before their country and its future?
Even on a practical level, what were they thinking? Even if Roh suffered from very low approval ratings (~30%), did they even ask or poll their constituents what they thought if they moved to impeach the president based on his recent campaign violations? Obviously not since almost 80% of South Koreans thought the impeachment was wrong. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
In the article by Nicholas Eberstadt below, he brings up a great point on how this can affect South Korea's relationship with North Korea and the hope of reunification. There should be a definite change of position within South Korea's foreign policy. The "sunshine" policy stands on weaker ground and if there was any hope of it in being effective I believe it has been washed away by the tide of the recent impeachment revealing the weak frame that holds South Korea's democracy together. A glimmer of hope from the "sunshine" approach can reach for a possible solution a hundred years from now, but I believe reality will soon dictate a stronger position that will lead towards a possible reunification under South Korea's democracy - hopefully strengthen by then - within my lifetime.
Democracy's Demons
An impeachment exposes the sordid opportunism of South Korean politics
BY NICHOLAS EBERSTADT
TIME MAGAZINE
"A republic, if you can keep it." That was Benjamin Franklin's response to an inquiry at the end of the 1787 Constitutional Convention about the type of government the founders of the U.S. had just created. The remark is usually cited as an example of Franklin's renowned wit, but he was deadly serious. He understood the experiment in constitutional governance to be a delicate thing: one that is difficult to maintain, and easy to destroy. We are reminded of this once again as we observe the sad and tawdry constitutional crisis that has suddenly engulfed South Korea because of the March 12 impeachment of President Roh Moo Hyun.
South Korea's foreign allies, including the U.S. government, are bravely pretending that the impeachment drama unfolding in Seoul is unexceptional and is perhaps even proof of South Korea's "strong, vibrant democracy." Let's not kid ourselves. By voting to strip President Roh of power and leaving it to the country's Constitutional Court to determine his ultimate
political fate, South Korea's National Assembly has demonstrated the frightful weakness of the country's purported democracy and has dealt that already frail structure another grave blow from which it is not yet clear it can recover.
To date, South Koreans have not been famously successful at keeping their republics. They have had six of them since the formal establishment of the modern South Korean state in 1948 and they are currently living under a Republic of Korea constitution that is in its ninth version. And yet many Koreans and foreign observers had hoped the demons that possessed the South Korean body politic were finally exorcised back in 1987, when the country held its first open and competitive presidential election heralding a transition from de facto military rule to a framework of constitutional
democracy.
Three subsequent presidential elections seemed to substantiate those hopes. The victor of the 1992 contest, Kim Young Sam, was a lifelong civilian politician, not a military surrogate. The 1997 election went to Kim Dae Jung, a lifelong dissident politician. And the 2002 election led to the inauguration of Roh, a human-rights lawyer and outspoken critic of the "old
style" of South Korean cronyism.
But the spectacle of Roh's impeachment puts paid to any notion that the country's constitutional democracy has grown sturdy roots. The National Assembly is dominated by two opposition parties that loathe the current occupant of the Blue House. They voted to suspend the elected President on the flimsiest of pretexts. Officially, the offenses for which Roh is to be tried, and for which he is already being punished, are some otherwise innocuous comments about the upcoming April 15 National Assembly election. Roh, who had renounced his membership of the ruling Millennium Democratic Party last fall, let it be known that he hoped candidates from the Uri Party would do well, and that he thought he might eventually join that organization. Lawmakers were shocked! What the President would dare sully the nation's pristine electoral process through such nefarious interference. Their reading of the law held Roh's words to be a violation of election rules preventing the President from using the power of his office to influence parliamentary contests. The ploy was utterly transparent, but the written constitution gave them all the formal authority they needed to proceed with the motion.
The truth is that the impeachment had nothing to do with the rule of law. The country's National Election Commission had already ruled Roh's faux pas to be a minor one. However, what the National Assembly provided was a perfect example of "rule by law", the opportunistic, unprincipled and entirely situational use of legal statutes by the powerful to gain political advantage. Such a practice has been the bane of unscrupulous Confucian governments throughout East Asian history.
With this patent misuse of its important right and responsibility, the National Assembly has exposed the weakness in contemporary South Korean democracy. If you or I learned that a beloved friend or relative had been found wandering naked in the street, our first reaction would probably be of horror, but then we might think back and recognize that there had been warning signs of the impending breakdown. So it is with South Korea's democratic system: signs of trouble were there, whether or not we cared to take them seriously. We might now remember how former President Kim Dae
Jung, that avowed champion of openness, law and democracy, launched tax probes against local media, a move many saw as an attempt to intimidate publications that criticized his policies. (In 1999, the International Press Institute in Vienna even sent the future Nobel Laureate a letter begging him to desist from his campaign against South Korea's free press.) Then there was the acclaimed Kim Dae Jung-Kim Jong Il summit in Pyongyang in June 2000, the supposedly historic "peace breakthrough" that later turned out to have been purchased furtively and illegally, with a price tag of at least $100 million, through the transfer of South Korean taxpayer money to the Dear Leader's bank accounts.
Roh's triumph in the December 2002 presidential plebiscite was itself testimony to the weakness of South Korea's democracy. His main selling point was not his allergy to the U.S. (genuine as that may be), but rather his outsider's resume his manifest lack of experience in Seoul's payola-driven politics, a system that the great majority of voters already viewed with distrust and disdain. Once in office, Roh's amateurish and inconstant performance, as well as his own cynical attempts to game the system, did little to allay popular misgivings about the health of the democracy. Recall that, after barely eight months in office, a frustrated and tactically outclassed Roh toyed with pulling a coup d'etat against himself by demanding an extra-constitutional referendum to back his policies and threatening to resign from the presidency if the vote didn't turn out to his liking.
In the event, Roh himself quickly dropped the idea of exiting from office before his term was up. His enemies did not follow suit. Now the impeachment process must grind forward, and from the standpoint of the endangered democratic system, none of the possible outcomes are reassuring. On one hand, the court may rule that Roh has violated his oath of office and must step down, in which case a perilously low threshold for rejecting the legitimacy of the people's highest elected representative will have been established for all future leaders of South Korea. On the other hand, the court may let Roh keep his job. Then the public will be forced to choose between a President they know to be too small for his office, and a National Assembly they no longer trust.
There is, of course, a winner in this tragedy. His name is Kim Jong Il. With South Korea in political turmoil, North Korea's degree of freedom in its nuclear confrontation with the Western world expands quite nicely. In the immediate future, the North need no longer worry about coordinated international efforts to press Pyongyang for nuclear compliance, because those efforts would inevitably require coordination with the now dysfunctional government in Seoul.
Over the longer term, the South's current travails will only reinforce the North's appetite for an unconditional Korean reunification, in the North's terms. For nearly six decades, North Korean doctrine has maintained that the South Korean political system is riddled with rot, tottering under its own contradictions and ready for a fall. That propaganda sounds uncomfortably plausible today. For their own sake, and the world's, South Koreans must prove Kim Jong Il wrong. It is still their republic, if they can keep it.
Nicholas Eberstadt holds the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at Washington, D.C.'s American Enterprise Institute
ICANN UNDER FIRE
Father of the Internet Speaks Out
Vint Cerf interview at News.com: "Who should govern the Net?" By Declan McCullagh
|
Father of the Internet Speaks Out
Vint Cerf interview at News.com: "Who should govern the Net?" By Declan McCullagh
Sunday, March 21, 2004
JOHN KERRY COMEDIAN
Hilarious article by Mark Steyn, from the Chicago Sun-Times. Got the link from Lucianne.com:
...Then there was the senator's clumsy attempt to declare himself America's ''second black president.'' Bill Clinton was at least canny enough to get himself anointed as the first black president by an actual black person, the novelist Toni Morrison, who declared that he displayed ''every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.'' It's harder to pull that off when you're a Swiss finishing school boy from Massachusetts. Many's the night John and the other boys in his dorm would lie awake dreaming of their freedom as they murmured one of the traditional spirituals of their people: ''Swing by, sweet limousine, comin' for to carry me home.'
.....
What else? For over a year, there've been jokes about the ponderous way the senator brings Vietnam up at every opportunity. Ask him about John Edwards' pretty boy bangs, and Kerry says solemnly, ''I know something about bangs for real.'' But he's beyond satire now. The Humane Society sends him a questionnaire asking ''Do you have any pets that have made an impact on you personally?'' Instead of citing any of the ginger toms, gerbils and cockatoos that have passed through the Kerry household in the last four decades, he goes back to those four months in Vietnam and recalls a pooch named VC who accompanied him on his swift boat missions.
Is it normal to take a yappy mutt on a swift boat patrol through enemy territory? Especially a mutt named after the enemy. Calling out ''Over here, VC'' in the middle of the jungle seems a good way to get taken out by friendly fire. Come to that, how many folks name their dogs after the enemy? Did British Tommies stumble across stray French poodles on the beach at Normandy and think, ''Aw, cute li'l feller. I'll call him SS''?
|
Hilarious article by Mark Steyn, from the Chicago Sun-Times. Got the link from Lucianne.com:
...Then there was the senator's clumsy attempt to declare himself America's ''second black president.'' Bill Clinton was at least canny enough to get himself anointed as the first black president by an actual black person, the novelist Toni Morrison, who declared that he displayed ''every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.'' It's harder to pull that off when you're a Swiss finishing school boy from Massachusetts. Many's the night John and the other boys in his dorm would lie awake dreaming of their freedom as they murmured one of the traditional spirituals of their people: ''Swing by, sweet limousine, comin' for to carry me home.'
.....
What else? For over a year, there've been jokes about the ponderous way the senator brings Vietnam up at every opportunity. Ask him about John Edwards' pretty boy bangs, and Kerry says solemnly, ''I know something about bangs for real.'' But he's beyond satire now. The Humane Society sends him a questionnaire asking ''Do you have any pets that have made an impact on you personally?'' Instead of citing any of the ginger toms, gerbils and cockatoos that have passed through the Kerry household in the last four decades, he goes back to those four months in Vietnam and recalls a pooch named VC who accompanied him on his swift boat missions.
Is it normal to take a yappy mutt on a swift boat patrol through enemy territory? Especially a mutt named after the enemy. Calling out ''Over here, VC'' in the middle of the jungle seems a good way to get taken out by friendly fire. Come to that, how many folks name their dogs after the enemy? Did British Tommies stumble across stray French poodles on the beach at Normandy and think, ''Aw, cute li'l feller. I'll call him SS''?
RICHARD CLARKE... GRUMPY OLD MAN II
Sandy Berger Crony? Kerry Supporter? Yes
Great finding by Powerline on Richard Clarke, author of the recent book "Against All Enemies" and bitter bureaucrat. Of course some media outlets label him as a Bush insider to add credibility to his views against Bush or fizz to the soda, but it seems his leanings have always been towards the Dems:
There you have it: Richard Clarke is a bitter, discredited bureaucrat who was an integral part of the Clinton administration's failed approach to terrorism, was demoted by President Bush, and is now an adjunct to John Kerry's presidential campaign.
|
Sandy Berger Crony? Kerry Supporter? Yes
Great finding by Powerline on Richard Clarke, author of the recent book "Against All Enemies" and bitter bureaucrat. Of course some media outlets label him as a Bush insider to add credibility to his views against Bush or fizz to the soda, but it seems his leanings have always been towards the Dems:
There you have it: Richard Clarke is a bitter, discredited bureaucrat who was an integral part of the Clinton administration's failed approach to terrorism, was demoted by President Bush, and is now an adjunct to John Kerry's presidential campaign.
JOHN KERRY... GRUMPY OLD MAN
What a Jerk!... Him and Dean are Cut from the Same Mold
Hugh Hewitt has a funny post on Kerry's snowboarding mishap:
John Kerry went snowboarding yesterday, and collided with a Secret Service agent. The New York Times account: "When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply 'I don't fall down,' then used an expletive to describe the agent who 'knocked me over.'"
Lovely. Kerry turns on the guy who will take bullets for him and torches him to the world, using another of Kerry's marvelous storehouse of barbs to add to the agent's problems. I am sure the collision was already bad news for the agent, but rather than come up from the fall trying to save the guy some grief at headquarters, Kerry's instinct was to blame and curse him. I am sure the military as well as the Secret Service relish the thought of working for this guy.
The Democrats have made their choice. And he's a world class jerk.
|
What a Jerk!... Him and Dean are Cut from the Same Mold
Hugh Hewitt has a funny post on Kerry's snowboarding mishap:
John Kerry went snowboarding yesterday, and collided with a Secret Service agent. The New York Times account: "When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply 'I don't fall down,' then used an expletive to describe the agent who 'knocked me over.'"
Lovely. Kerry turns on the guy who will take bullets for him and torches him to the world, using another of Kerry's marvelous storehouse of barbs to add to the agent's problems. I am sure the collision was already bad news for the agent, but rather than come up from the fall trying to save the guy some grief at headquarters, Kerry's instinct was to blame and curse him. I am sure the military as well as the Secret Service relish the thought of working for this guy.
The Democrats have made their choice. And he's a world class jerk.
Friday, March 19, 2004
ANOTHER VIEW ON FOOD AID TO NORTH KOREA
Mingi Sends Me a Timely Article... Origin Unknown
Hahaha... a couple days after I post a plug for the Eugene Bell Foundation, my friend Mingi, who is a reporter at Time, sends me the article below. To my knowledge, Dr. Linton does a good job of tracking and securing the delivery, but it sounds like this is a rare situation and a small shipment compared with the tons of food that is stolen by the North Korea's miliary. Very informative article and I guess we should be cautious on where and how we donate food and money to, and not just to North Korea. Mingi's email didn't contain where the article was from and a quick Google search brought up nothing. Anyway, here is the whole article below by William Triplett:
Aiding Kim
International food help props up a vulnerable regime.
By William C. Triplett
Jane Harman is a hard-working congresswoman from California who is now the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Her district is filled with American defense contractors and she has served on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees of the House. She has made it her business to know and understand military and intelligence matters.
In August 1997, she made a trip to North Korea to examine the progress of the international aid program. Stopping in Seoul on her return she told a news conference of her concern that "some food aid has probably ended up in the hands of the [North Korean] military and the other elite."
In less than a day, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's press spokesman, Jamie Rubin, was expressly denying Harman's concern. "I can say that our experts are confident that there is no significant diversion of the assistance we have provided," Rubin told the press.
What Mr. Rubin did not know was that exactly as he was speaking, a U.S. military team inspecting a captured North Korean submarine was finding the remains of tinned food provided by an American church from Virginia. The label on the cans read "Food for Relief, in the name of Christ" and "Donatable food, not for resale." The North Korean submarine had run aground off the east coast of South Korea. Half the crew committed suicide and the other half engaged in a shootout with the South Korean Army and police. By the time it was over, twenty-four North Korean commandoes and fourteen South Koreans were dead. The single surviving commando told authorities his team was on a military reconnaissance and rehearsal mission to probe South Korean defenses.
INTERNATIONAL AID TO KIM'S RESCUE
Here was clear evidence that international food aid to North Korea was being diverted to the military. This leads to some questions about the realities of the North Korean famine and the international food aid that was sent to save the North Korean people.
Was there a famine in North Korea from 1995-1998? Yes, although some observers, including the CIA, doubted it at the time. There is now enough physical evidence of malnourished children to confirm the reports from refugees. The best estimate is that two to three million people died of starvation and diseases related to malnutrition.
Were the reports of people resorting to cannibalism credible? Yes. Refugees streaming into Manchuria reported this. Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz obtained a confirmatory Top Secret American intelligence document, which he
included in an appendix to his book Betrayal.
What was the cause of the famine? Only about 20 percent of North Korea's land is suitable for agriculture. Communist-style collectivization and mismanagement made the situation worse. Prior to 1990, North Korea was exchanging its low-quality industrial goods with China and the Soviet Bloc for food at subsidized prices. When that ended, famine was almost inevitable.
How did the North Korean government respond to the food crisis? Kim Jung Il ensured that the military and the Communist elite were fed and left the rest of the population to fend for themselves. The North Korean government then appealed for international food aid under the excuse of a natural disaster — severe flooding. While there was some truth to that claim, the famine was mostly man-induced. The Imjin River runs through the DMZ to the sea on the western side. Standing on the south bank of the river, in South Korea, and looking across the river into North Korea, one immediately notices that the northern bank and the hills beyond have been completely stripped of trees and shrubs. This kind of practice has led to extreme environmental damage in North Korea and loss of agriculture.
What was the international response to the North Korean famine? The World Food Program, an arm of the United Nations, organized an international program that included major donations from the United States, Japan, South
Korea, and the European Union. The World Food Program is currently soliciting donations for 2003-2004.
Was it necessary for the North Koreans to seek international aid? A high-ranking North Korean defector reported that the Dear Leader spent almost a billion dollars on a Memorial Hall glorifying his dead father. These sorts of projects continued unabated throughout the worst of the famine. In 1996, the Agency for International Development, an arm of the State Department, hired an experienced researcher, Sue Lautze, to examine the food situation in North Korea. She traveled over much of the country including the border region. When her draft report concluded that the Kim regime had the foreign currency reserves to pay for its own food imports but that these financial reserves had been spent on weapons instead, the State Department, then headed by Secretary Albright, ordered a revision of the report before releasing it.
Was the international food aid diverted for illicit purposes? The diversion of international food aid in North Korea is much more serious than a few cans of American food found in a submarine. The World Food Program lacked any management or control of the distribution. In 1998 a number of highly respected international aid groups, including Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders) and the International Federation of Red Cross Societies, "decided not to supply any food aid to the communist state because this food had often been turned over to the military of its own use." In one instance, the North Korean military commandeered five thousand tons of food aid at gun point right in front of WFP officials. In 2001 another UN agency, the UN Commission on Human Rights, received a damning report from Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, stating that it "gradually became clear that most of the international aid was being diverted by the army, the secret services, and the [North Korean] government."
A North Korean army defector has pointed out just how easy it was to fool the WFP. He told a South Korean magazine that because of the "military-first" policy, the KPA has carte blanch for whatever it wants at the ports.61 His unit simply put on civilian clothes and changed from military to civilian license plates whenever the WFA inspectors were around.
"Since South Korean rice was of high quality, it all went to high-ranking figures," he said with regard to a 1999 shipment. The defector recalls that, "Soldiers also ate all of that rice. North Korea is based on military-first politics....There is no need to pay attention to the residents."
There is also the question of whether North Korea became a food exporter during this famine period. A Japanese visitor to the Kim palaces reports seeing a letter of thanks for food aid donated to an African country. There were also unconfirmed rumors of North Korea trading food for arms.
What effect did the famine have on the Kim family and its supporters? Almost none at all. In the summer of 2003 the memoirs of the Dear Leader's Japanese chef were published in Japan. The chef revealed that Kim and his children (who were known as "Princes" and "Princesses") continued to live the high life while his subjects starved. His menu includes the most expensive delicacies from around the world. He had 40,000 bottles of imported wine in his cellars. When his jet ski wasn't fast enough, he ordered a bigger and faster one. When he wanted to get around one of his extensive estates, he just picked out a Honda motorcycle from a catalogue and it appeared as if by magic. For entertainment there was fishing, horseback riding, bowling, billiards, satellite TV, and films in the private screening rooms.
The Communist elite did all right as well. The Korean Bar-B-Que restaurants in Pyongyang were constantly filled. An American observer noted that a high school for the elite had healthy children "comparable with those in South
Korea or Japan."
Some of the food aid did manage to find its way to children and average North Koreans. But substantially fewer North Koreans received aid than the World Food Program claims.
What did communist China do during the famine? The communist Chinese were total opportunists in this tragedy. They refused to cooperate with the UN so no one really knows how much food aid they actually gave. China secretly admitted to the UN that their aid was specifically designed to keep the North Korean military happy so they would not overthrow the Kim dynasty.
Did the international relief effort moderate North Korean behavior? No. The international food aid program and North Korean aggression against others existed in parallel universes. While the massive effort to help the North Korean people was in full swing, the following occurred:
- Two submarine-launched espionage operations were detected in South Korea
- North Korea fired a ballistic missile across the Japanese islands
- North Korea continued to traffic narcotics trafficking to Japan and South Korea
- North Korea continued to send nuclear weapons and missiles to terrorist countries
- North Korea continued to engage in espionage and sabotage rehearsals in Japan and South Korea
- The North Korean secret uranium enrichment program prospered.
The amount of physical and mental suffering that occurred during the North Korean famine is more than we can really imagine. A substantial portion of the older generation simply disappeared. An American observer passing through a North Korean city noted the total absence of older or even middle-aged people. The reason? Grandparents and parents had given their rations to their children while they, themselves, either starved to death or died of malnutrition-related illnesses. When they could get it, people drowned themselves in alcohol.
Sadly, it may be that the international food aid program saved the North Korean regime at a moment when it was most vulnerable. If there had been no international food aid at all or if the United Nations officials had demanded openness and an equitable distribution for the food, Kim's regime may have collapsed. Andrew Natsios, the American administrator of the Agency for International Development, offers the following analysis:
Had the ration even in these very lean years been evenly distributed among the entire population, people might have been able to use their coping mechanism to avoid famine. Such an egalitarian ration, however, would have shaken the tenuous foundations of the state. It would have caused panic among the party cadres, internal security apparatus, and the military who might have seen themselves starving as the rest of the population did, and it was on these three groups that the survival of the Kim dynasty depended. But the UN made no such demands. Likewise, the Clinton administration did not demand an end to North Korean aggression as a condition for sending American food aid, nor did it pressure the Chinese to use their leverage on Pyongyang. By utter ruthlessness in Pyongyang, aided by weakness in Washington and at the UN, Kim's regime remained in place. The hypocrisy continues today. In the fall of 2003, an American government official had a meeting with a senior North Korean diplomat in New York. His mission was to try to persuade Pyongyang to be more open on the distribution of recent shipments of international food aid to North Korea. The North Korean diplomat dismissed him with contempt. Nothing has changed.
William C. Triplett, a national-security expert, is the author of Rogue State: How a Nuclear North Korea Threatens America.
|
Mingi Sends Me a Timely Article... Origin Unknown
Hahaha... a couple days after I post a plug for the Eugene Bell Foundation, my friend Mingi, who is a reporter at Time, sends me the article below. To my knowledge, Dr. Linton does a good job of tracking and securing the delivery, but it sounds like this is a rare situation and a small shipment compared with the tons of food that is stolen by the North Korea's miliary. Very informative article and I guess we should be cautious on where and how we donate food and money to, and not just to North Korea. Mingi's email didn't contain where the article was from and a quick Google search brought up nothing. Anyway, here is the whole article below by William Triplett:
Aiding Kim
International food help props up a vulnerable regime.
By William C. Triplett
Jane Harman is a hard-working congresswoman from California who is now the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Her district is filled with American defense contractors and she has served on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees of the House. She has made it her business to know and understand military and intelligence matters.
In August 1997, she made a trip to North Korea to examine the progress of the international aid program. Stopping in Seoul on her return she told a news conference of her concern that "some food aid has probably ended up in the hands of the [North Korean] military and the other elite."
In less than a day, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's press spokesman, Jamie Rubin, was expressly denying Harman's concern. "I can say that our experts are confident that there is no significant diversion of the assistance we have provided," Rubin told the press.
What Mr. Rubin did not know was that exactly as he was speaking, a U.S. military team inspecting a captured North Korean submarine was finding the remains of tinned food provided by an American church from Virginia. The label on the cans read "Food for Relief, in the name of Christ" and "Donatable food, not for resale." The North Korean submarine had run aground off the east coast of South Korea. Half the crew committed suicide and the other half engaged in a shootout with the South Korean Army and police. By the time it was over, twenty-four North Korean commandoes and fourteen South Koreans were dead. The single surviving commando told authorities his team was on a military reconnaissance and rehearsal mission to probe South Korean defenses.
INTERNATIONAL AID TO KIM'S RESCUE
Here was clear evidence that international food aid to North Korea was being diverted to the military. This leads to some questions about the realities of the North Korean famine and the international food aid that was sent to save the North Korean people.
Was there a famine in North Korea from 1995-1998? Yes, although some observers, including the CIA, doubted it at the time. There is now enough physical evidence of malnourished children to confirm the reports from refugees. The best estimate is that two to three million people died of starvation and diseases related to malnutrition.
Were the reports of people resorting to cannibalism credible? Yes. Refugees streaming into Manchuria reported this. Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz obtained a confirmatory Top Secret American intelligence document, which he
included in an appendix to his book Betrayal.
What was the cause of the famine? Only about 20 percent of North Korea's land is suitable for agriculture. Communist-style collectivization and mismanagement made the situation worse. Prior to 1990, North Korea was exchanging its low-quality industrial goods with China and the Soviet Bloc for food at subsidized prices. When that ended, famine was almost inevitable.
How did the North Korean government respond to the food crisis? Kim Jung Il ensured that the military and the Communist elite were fed and left the rest of the population to fend for themselves. The North Korean government then appealed for international food aid under the excuse of a natural disaster — severe flooding. While there was some truth to that claim, the famine was mostly man-induced. The Imjin River runs through the DMZ to the sea on the western side. Standing on the south bank of the river, in South Korea, and looking across the river into North Korea, one immediately notices that the northern bank and the hills beyond have been completely stripped of trees and shrubs. This kind of practice has led to extreme environmental damage in North Korea and loss of agriculture.
What was the international response to the North Korean famine? The World Food Program, an arm of the United Nations, organized an international program that included major donations from the United States, Japan, South
Korea, and the European Union. The World Food Program is currently soliciting donations for 2003-2004.
Was it necessary for the North Koreans to seek international aid? A high-ranking North Korean defector reported that the Dear Leader spent almost a billion dollars on a Memorial Hall glorifying his dead father. These sorts of projects continued unabated throughout the worst of the famine. In 1996, the Agency for International Development, an arm of the State Department, hired an experienced researcher, Sue Lautze, to examine the food situation in North Korea. She traveled over much of the country including the border region. When her draft report concluded that the Kim regime had the foreign currency reserves to pay for its own food imports but that these financial reserves had been spent on weapons instead, the State Department, then headed by Secretary Albright, ordered a revision of the report before releasing it.
Was the international food aid diverted for illicit purposes? The diversion of international food aid in North Korea is much more serious than a few cans of American food found in a submarine. The World Food Program lacked any management or control of the distribution. In 1998 a number of highly respected international aid groups, including Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders) and the International Federation of Red Cross Societies, "decided not to supply any food aid to the communist state because this food had often been turned over to the military of its own use." In one instance, the North Korean military commandeered five thousand tons of food aid at gun point right in front of WFP officials. In 2001 another UN agency, the UN Commission on Human Rights, received a damning report from Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, stating that it "gradually became clear that most of the international aid was being diverted by the army, the secret services, and the [North Korean] government."
A North Korean army defector has pointed out just how easy it was to fool the WFP. He told a South Korean magazine that because of the "military-first" policy, the KPA has carte blanch for whatever it wants at the ports.61 His unit simply put on civilian clothes and changed from military to civilian license plates whenever the WFA inspectors were around.
"Since South Korean rice was of high quality, it all went to high-ranking figures," he said with regard to a 1999 shipment. The defector recalls that, "Soldiers also ate all of that rice. North Korea is based on military-first politics....There is no need to pay attention to the residents."
There is also the question of whether North Korea became a food exporter during this famine period. A Japanese visitor to the Kim palaces reports seeing a letter of thanks for food aid donated to an African country. There were also unconfirmed rumors of North Korea trading food for arms.
What effect did the famine have on the Kim family and its supporters? Almost none at all. In the summer of 2003 the memoirs of the Dear Leader's Japanese chef were published in Japan. The chef revealed that Kim and his children (who were known as "Princes" and "Princesses") continued to live the high life while his subjects starved. His menu includes the most expensive delicacies from around the world. He had 40,000 bottles of imported wine in his cellars. When his jet ski wasn't fast enough, he ordered a bigger and faster one. When he wanted to get around one of his extensive estates, he just picked out a Honda motorcycle from a catalogue and it appeared as if by magic. For entertainment there was fishing, horseback riding, bowling, billiards, satellite TV, and films in the private screening rooms.
The Communist elite did all right as well. The Korean Bar-B-Que restaurants in Pyongyang were constantly filled. An American observer noted that a high school for the elite had healthy children "comparable with those in South
Korea or Japan."
Some of the food aid did manage to find its way to children and average North Koreans. But substantially fewer North Koreans received aid than the World Food Program claims.
What did communist China do during the famine? The communist Chinese were total opportunists in this tragedy. They refused to cooperate with the UN so no one really knows how much food aid they actually gave. China secretly admitted to the UN that their aid was specifically designed to keep the North Korean military happy so they would not overthrow the Kim dynasty.
Did the international relief effort moderate North Korean behavior? No. The international food aid program and North Korean aggression against others existed in parallel universes. While the massive effort to help the North Korean people was in full swing, the following occurred:
- Two submarine-launched espionage operations were detected in South Korea
- North Korea fired a ballistic missile across the Japanese islands
- North Korea continued to traffic narcotics trafficking to Japan and South Korea
- North Korea continued to send nuclear weapons and missiles to terrorist countries
- North Korea continued to engage in espionage and sabotage rehearsals in Japan and South Korea
- The North Korean secret uranium enrichment program prospered.
The amount of physical and mental suffering that occurred during the North Korean famine is more than we can really imagine. A substantial portion of the older generation simply disappeared. An American observer passing through a North Korean city noted the total absence of older or even middle-aged people. The reason? Grandparents and parents had given their rations to their children while they, themselves, either starved to death or died of malnutrition-related illnesses. When they could get it, people drowned themselves in alcohol.
Sadly, it may be that the international food aid program saved the North Korean regime at a moment when it was most vulnerable. If there had been no international food aid at all or if the United Nations officials had demanded openness and an equitable distribution for the food, Kim's regime may have collapsed. Andrew Natsios, the American administrator of the Agency for International Development, offers the following analysis:
Had the ration even in these very lean years been evenly distributed among the entire population, people might have been able to use their coping mechanism to avoid famine. Such an egalitarian ration, however, would have shaken the tenuous foundations of the state. It would have caused panic among the party cadres, internal security apparatus, and the military who might have seen themselves starving as the rest of the population did, and it was on these three groups that the survival of the Kim dynasty depended. But the UN made no such demands. Likewise, the Clinton administration did not demand an end to North Korean aggression as a condition for sending American food aid, nor did it pressure the Chinese to use their leverage on Pyongyang. By utter ruthlessness in Pyongyang, aided by weakness in Washington and at the UN, Kim's regime remained in place. The hypocrisy continues today. In the fall of 2003, an American government official had a meeting with a senior North Korean diplomat in New York. His mission was to try to persuade Pyongyang to be more open on the distribution of recent shipments of international food aid to North Korea. The North Korean diplomat dismissed him with contempt. Nothing has changed.
William C. Triplett, a national-security expert, is the author of Rogue State: How a Nuclear North Korea Threatens America.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
THE FRENCH WAR FOR OIL
NEW YORK POST
By KENNETH R. TIMMERMAN
March 16, 2004 -- MANY Americans are convinced even today that the war in Iraq was all about oil. And they're right - but oil was the key for French President Jacques Chirac, not for the United States.
In documents I obtained during an investigation of the French relationship to Saddam Hussein, the French interest in maintaining Saddam Hussein in power was spelled out in excruciating detail. The price tag: close to $100 billion. That was what French oil companies stood to profit in the first seven years of their exclusive oil arrangements - had Saddam remained in power.
The French claimed their opposition to the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein was all about policy. The editor of the Paris daily Le Monde, Jean-Marie Colombani, just resuscitated those arguments in an editorial that singled out George W. Bush as "a threat to the very foundation of the historical alliance between the U.S. and Europe," and called fervently for the election of John F. Kerry. (I guess that F now stands for France.) (full article)
|
NEW YORK POST
By KENNETH R. TIMMERMAN
March 16, 2004 -- MANY Americans are convinced even today that the war in Iraq was all about oil. And they're right - but oil was the key for French President Jacques Chirac, not for the United States.
In documents I obtained during an investigation of the French relationship to Saddam Hussein, the French interest in maintaining Saddam Hussein in power was spelled out in excruciating detail. The price tag: close to $100 billion. That was what French oil companies stood to profit in the first seven years of their exclusive oil arrangements - had Saddam remained in power.
The French claimed their opposition to the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein was all about policy. The editor of the Paris daily Le Monde, Jean-Marie Colombani, just resuscitated those arguments in an editorial that singled out George W. Bush as "a threat to the very foundation of the historical alliance between the U.S. and Europe," and called fervently for the election of John F. Kerry. (I guess that F now stands for France.) (full article)
DEAN IS A LOON AND HIS LOGIC IS FLAWED
Will the Dems please pull Howard Dean out of the public eye. It's bad for America. Disturbing how he throws his angry allegations into the wind and how he feeds the hunger of the angry left, which is a sliver of America like the Montana Freemen, with his words. It's unhealthy for the America's public mind to be fed such garbage because it can be infectious. Hate and such words can grow and spread in difficult times. This is a time where America needs to be more united and not divided by poisoned rhetoric.
Yes, Republicans can twist words and throw out venom too, but Dean goes to extremes consistently. I'm not offended or upset by his accusations against President Bush. I'm just amazed that he could even state such a thing and even logically connect the two together.
In a similar but slightly better flawed logic than Dean, if the attack was by al-Qaeda, then it proves the connection between terrorists and Saddam's rule. Also it confirms that the U.S. invasion of Iraqi was a great preemptive move by President Bush. Okay, I'll stop. Dean is just a retard. Article below.
Dean: Bush responsible for deaths in Spain
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer
March 17, 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said Tuesday that President Bush's decision to send troops to Iraq appears to have contributed to the bombing deaths of 201 in Spain.
A growing international investigation is focusing on Islamic militants possibly linked to al-Qaida as the culprits in the Madrid train bombings last Thursday.
European intelligence agencies are trying to identify a purported al-Qaida operative who claimed in a videotape that the group carried out the bombings to punish Spain for backing of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The tape was discovered in a trash bin near Madrid's largest mosque on Saturday after a telephone tip to a Madrid TV station.
Dean referred to the videotape when asked whether he was linking U.S. troops in Iraq to the deaths in Spain.
"That was what they said in the tape," Dean said. "They made that connection, I'm simply repeating it." (full article)
|
Will the Dems please pull Howard Dean out of the public eye. It's bad for America. Disturbing how he throws his angry allegations into the wind and how he feeds the hunger of the angry left, which is a sliver of America like the Montana Freemen, with his words. It's unhealthy for the America's public mind to be fed such garbage because it can be infectious. Hate and such words can grow and spread in difficult times. This is a time where America needs to be more united and not divided by poisoned rhetoric.
Yes, Republicans can twist words and throw out venom too, but Dean goes to extremes consistently. I'm not offended or upset by his accusations against President Bush. I'm just amazed that he could even state such a thing and even logically connect the two together.
In a similar but slightly better flawed logic than Dean, if the attack was by al-Qaeda, then it proves the connection between terrorists and Saddam's rule. Also it confirms that the U.S. invasion of Iraqi was a great preemptive move by President Bush. Okay, I'll stop. Dean is just a retard. Article below.
Dean: Bush responsible for deaths in Spain
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer
March 17, 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said Tuesday that President Bush's decision to send troops to Iraq appears to have contributed to the bombing deaths of 201 in Spain.
A growing international investigation is focusing on Islamic militants possibly linked to al-Qaida as the culprits in the Madrid train bombings last Thursday.
European intelligence agencies are trying to identify a purported al-Qaida operative who claimed in a videotape that the group carried out the bombings to punish Spain for backing of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The tape was discovered in a trash bin near Madrid's largest mosque on Saturday after a telephone tip to a Madrid TV station.
Dean referred to the videotape when asked whether he was linking U.S. troops in Iraq to the deaths in Spain.
"That was what they said in the tape," Dean said. "They made that connection, I'm simply repeating it." (full article)
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
ANOTHER HUMANITARIAN CAUSE... AFGHANISTAN
Sgt. Jay Smith Asks for Your Help
"U.S. Army Special Forces request shoes, clothes and tools for villagers in remote Afghanistan."
|
Sgt. Jay Smith Asks for Your Help
"U.S. Army Special Forces request shoes, clothes and tools for villagers in remote Afghanistan."
UNICEF REPORTS SHORTAGE OF ENERGY IN NORTH KOREA
Eugene Bell Foundation is an Option for Some
News article is below. Also the food shortages continue to be a problem. For those of you interested in helping out the starving in North Korea, you can consider the Eugene Bell Foundation. Some of you might be concerned whether the food is properly delivered to those in need or to North Korea's military, but I know this organization has ensured this to the best possible degree. Dr. Stephen Linton, the founder, visits North Korea often with these shipments for his own comfort. Linton is a descendant of one of the two historic missionary families in Korea. The other are the Underwoods who founded Yonsei University, which is one of the top universities in Korea.
My parents have also known Dr. Stephen Linton for years and have fundraised for his non-profit organization in the past. For those of you in Korea and concerned about any pro-North Korea ties (read my prior posts on this subject), my family in South Korea were strong supporters of Lee Hoi-Chang's presidential campaign and have a distaste for former President DJ Kim's "Sunshine Policy" towards North Korea. Anyway, if you are interested in providing humanitarian aid to the starving in North Korea consider the Eugene Bell Foundation.
UNICEF: N. Korea Starved for Energy
BY JAE-SUK YOO
Associated Press
SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea lacks enough electricity to pump clean water or heat schools while food shortages still threaten children in the impoverished nation, UNICEF chief Carol Bellamy said Wednesday.
"There is a lot of water in the North, but they don't have the capacity to get that water to people because their electricity system is not working," Bellamy told reporters in Seoul after a recent three-day visit to North Korea.
She said her U.N. children's agency is trying to build a gravity-driven water system in the North.
North Korea's already dire energy situation has further deteriorated since late 2002 amid an international standoff over the communist state's nuclear weapons program. The United States and its allies cut off annual shipments of 500,000 tons of free oil, in retaliation of Pyongyang's nuclear moves.
.....
Food shortages also remain a grave threat to children in North Korea.
"We still estimate that there are about 70,000 children ... that are suffering from severe malnutrition," Bellamy said. "The challenges for children and the women obviously remain quite stark and quite significant."
North Korea has been relying on outside help to feed its 22 million populace since the mid-1990s due to economic mismanagement, loss of Soviet subsidies and years of bad weather. More than 200,000 - some say 2 million - have since died of hunger and hunger-related diseases. (full article)
|
Eugene Bell Foundation is an Option for Some
News article is below. Also the food shortages continue to be a problem. For those of you interested in helping out the starving in North Korea, you can consider the Eugene Bell Foundation. Some of you might be concerned whether the food is properly delivered to those in need or to North Korea's military, but I know this organization has ensured this to the best possible degree. Dr. Stephen Linton, the founder, visits North Korea often with these shipments for his own comfort. Linton is a descendant of one of the two historic missionary families in Korea. The other are the Underwoods who founded Yonsei University, which is one of the top universities in Korea.
My parents have also known Dr. Stephen Linton for years and have fundraised for his non-profit organization in the past. For those of you in Korea and concerned about any pro-North Korea ties (read my prior posts on this subject), my family in South Korea were strong supporters of Lee Hoi-Chang's presidential campaign and have a distaste for former President DJ Kim's "Sunshine Policy" towards North Korea. Anyway, if you are interested in providing humanitarian aid to the starving in North Korea consider the Eugene Bell Foundation.
UNICEF: N. Korea Starved for Energy
BY JAE-SUK YOO
Associated Press
SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea lacks enough electricity to pump clean water or heat schools while food shortages still threaten children in the impoverished nation, UNICEF chief Carol Bellamy said Wednesday.
"There is a lot of water in the North, but they don't have the capacity to get that water to people because their electricity system is not working," Bellamy told reporters in Seoul after a recent three-day visit to North Korea.
She said her U.N. children's agency is trying to build a gravity-driven water system in the North.
North Korea's already dire energy situation has further deteriorated since late 2002 amid an international standoff over the communist state's nuclear weapons program. The United States and its allies cut off annual shipments of 500,000 tons of free oil, in retaliation of Pyongyang's nuclear moves.
.....
Food shortages also remain a grave threat to children in North Korea.
"We still estimate that there are about 70,000 children ... that are suffering from severe malnutrition," Bellamy said. "The challenges for children and the women obviously remain quite stark and quite significant."
North Korea has been relying on outside help to feed its 22 million populace since the mid-1990s due to economic mismanagement, loss of Soviet subsidies and years of bad weather. More than 200,000 - some say 2 million - have since died of hunger and hunger-related diseases. (full article)
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
ANOTHER PERSONALITY TEST BY TICKLE
Interesting approach to this whole social networking thing by Tickle. They get people to take various types of exams and plug them into their online social network or matchmaking service. My girlfriend sent me their IQ exam a few weeks ago, but I didn't get a chance to do it yet. I guess I will do it soon.
It didn't seem like an in-depth questionnaire like other personality tests, but the results were somewhat similar to my Keirsey Temperament results (ESTP). Only thing that cracks me up is that it states, "Chances are you're pretty liberal." While not necessarily referring to my political views, it was amusing because a handful of people have recently emailed me to say that I'm pretty open-minded for a Republican, or that even though I'm a Bush supporter I seem like a liberal.
Hahahaha... While I appreciated those comments, it was funny because I am conservative on many issues (e.g. foreign policy, economic policy, abortion issue) and moderate on others, and generally conservative in my personal lifestyle. I am open-minded and like to hear various sides of issues since I believe you don't improve your thinking or stands on issues without learning and listening to the various voices in the world. Anyway, I love these online exams since they usually go over-the-top to make you feel good about yourself in trying to get you to pay for additional services. My results below:
Bernard, you're a Skydiver!
Your personality is actually determined by two personality sub-types - your primary, or dominant sub-type, and your secondary sub-type. You are a Skydiver which means you are a Seeker / Golden Your primary sub-type is defined by "Seeker" characteristics and your secondary sub-type is defined by "Golden" characteristics.
That means you're open minded, extroverted, free-spirited, and independent. Chances are you're pretty liberal. You're like a magnet for love and affection. People adore you. And, thanks to that healthy dose of self-confidence, you're super-flexible.
How do we know all this? How do we know you're a great leader at work? Or that you're a self-starter and will always volunteer to take on a job? How could we have divined that you're an excellent communicator and tend to spread your enthusiasm to others?
...
You are independent, fun, interesting, and gung-ho about life. So much so that people tend to find you an irresistible presence to be around. You're open and extroverted, and willing to see issues from at least a couple of different sides.
|
Interesting approach to this whole social networking thing by Tickle. They get people to take various types of exams and plug them into their online social network or matchmaking service. My girlfriend sent me their IQ exam a few weeks ago, but I didn't get a chance to do it yet. I guess I will do it soon.
It didn't seem like an in-depth questionnaire like other personality tests, but the results were somewhat similar to my Keirsey Temperament results (ESTP). Only thing that cracks me up is that it states, "Chances are you're pretty liberal." While not necessarily referring to my political views, it was amusing because a handful of people have recently emailed me to say that I'm pretty open-minded for a Republican, or that even though I'm a Bush supporter I seem like a liberal.
Hahahaha... While I appreciated those comments, it was funny because I am conservative on many issues (e.g. foreign policy, economic policy, abortion issue) and moderate on others, and generally conservative in my personal lifestyle. I am open-minded and like to hear various sides of issues since I believe you don't improve your thinking or stands on issues without learning and listening to the various voices in the world. Anyway, I love these online exams since they usually go over-the-top to make you feel good about yourself in trying to get you to pay for additional services. My results below:
Bernard, you're a Skydiver!
Your personality is actually determined by two personality sub-types - your primary, or dominant sub-type, and your secondary sub-type. You are a Skydiver which means you are a Seeker / Golden Your primary sub-type is defined by "Seeker" characteristics and your secondary sub-type is defined by "Golden" characteristics.
That means you're open minded, extroverted, free-spirited, and independent. Chances are you're pretty liberal. You're like a magnet for love and affection. People adore you. And, thanks to that healthy dose of self-confidence, you're super-flexible.
How do we know all this? How do we know you're a great leader at work? Or that you're a self-starter and will always volunteer to take on a job? How could we have divined that you're an excellent communicator and tend to spread your enthusiasm to others?
...
You are independent, fun, interesting, and gung-ho about life. So much so that people tend to find you an irresistible presence to be around. You're open and extroverted, and willing to see issues from at least a couple of different sides.
JESSICA SIMPSON AT THE WHITE HOUSE
Hilarious. From the Washington Post:
Simpson, whose verbal gaffes are also legendary, pulled another one Sunday visiting the White House, our sources say. The singer was introduced to Interior Secretary Gale Norton and gushed: "You've done a nice job decorating the White House."
|
Hilarious. From the Washington Post:
Simpson, whose verbal gaffes are also legendary, pulled another one Sunday visiting the White House, our sources say. The singer was introduced to Interior Secretary Gale Norton and gushed: "You've done a nice job decorating the White House."
MARK CUBAN WEBLOG... AWESOME
Could Not Agree with Him More About Sam Smith
Public opinion on Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, is mixed in terms of his management decisions and public rants about the NBA, referees, and other related issues. Generally, I believe he brings a refreshing and entertaining aspect to the NBA. Now he has a blog, which is awesome.
In a recent entry, he rips on Sam Smith, from the Chicago Tribune, which I loved. I don't like Sam Smith, but for different reasons than Cuban. Cuban writes:
"I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and guess that he isn't lazy, that he is only malicious."
I agree with his statement. He was malicious. Malicious against MJ. Malicious from his subtle articles to his harsh book on Michael. "Hate" might be a better word since I grew up in Chicago and loved Michael Jordan. Sam Smith was Michael Jordan-hater, which I did not respect or appreciate. Michael has his flaws, but he brought the NBA to another level and gave the City of Chicago a decade of raw excitement and pride. Sam Smith used his pen for personal attacks on Michael which I will never forget.
|
Could Not Agree with Him More About Sam Smith
Public opinion on Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, is mixed in terms of his management decisions and public rants about the NBA, referees, and other related issues. Generally, I believe he brings a refreshing and entertaining aspect to the NBA. Now he has a blog, which is awesome.
In a recent entry, he rips on Sam Smith, from the Chicago Tribune, which I loved. I don't like Sam Smith, but for different reasons than Cuban. Cuban writes:
"I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and guess that he isn't lazy, that he is only malicious."
I agree with his statement. He was malicious. Malicious against MJ. Malicious from his subtle articles to his harsh book on Michael. "Hate" might be a better word since I grew up in Chicago and loved Michael Jordan. Sam Smith was Michael Jordan-hater, which I did not respect or appreciate. Michael has his flaws, but he brought the NBA to another level and gave the City of Chicago a decade of raw excitement and pride. Sam Smith used his pen for personal attacks on Michael which I will never forget.
"CNN FIDDLES WHILE IRAN BURNS!"
From Roger Simon... Liberal Media is Blinded
Roger:
While CNN (via Instapundit) continues its coverage of 60, count 'em 60, peace demonstrators at the White House, Project: FREE IRAN reports the real news:
Unrest and violent clashes continued, today and for the 3rd consecutive day, in Fereydoon-Kenar and spreaded to the neighboring cities of Babolsar, Khezer-Shahr and Babol.
Thousands of residents came into the streets especially in Fereydoon-Kenar and resisted to the brutal assaults of the regime forces. Several more demonstrators have been wounded in the today's clashes after the regime heliported special forces opened the charge. (full post)
|
From Roger Simon... Liberal Media is Blinded
Roger:
While CNN (via Instapundit) continues its coverage of 60, count 'em 60, peace demonstrators at the White House, Project: FREE IRAN reports the real news:
Unrest and violent clashes continued, today and for the 3rd consecutive day, in Fereydoon-Kenar and spreaded to the neighboring cities of Babolsar, Khezer-Shahr and Babol.
Thousands of residents came into the streets especially in Fereydoon-Kenar and resisted to the brutal assaults of the regime forces. Several more demonstrators have been wounded in the today's clashes after the regime heliported special forces opened the charge. (full post)
Monday, March 15, 2004
E-GOVERNMENT AND DEMOCRACY:
REPRESENTATION AND CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN THE INFORMATION-AGE
Linkedin.com is a pretty effective service. I've met several interesting people through this professional online network. One of them recently, was Steven Clift, a leading speaker and proponent of e-government and democracy. He's visiting Seoul March 29th-30th, so if you're interested in hearing him joining him for a discussion just email me or visit his website. The follow is an excerpt from his paper on this subject matter:
E-GOVERNMENT AND DEMOCRACY:
Representation and Citizen Engagement in the Information-Age
By Steven Clift
This article is based on research provided to the United Nations – UNPAN/DESA for the 2003 World Public Sector Report.
Summary
Leading governments, with democratic intent, are incorporating information and communication technologies into their e-government activities. This trend necessitates the establishment of outcomes and goals to guide such efforts. By utilizing the best practices, technologies, and strategies we will deepen democracy and ensure representation and citizen engagement in the information age. It is upon this foundation that opportunities for greater online engagement and deliberation among citizens and their governments will demonstrate the value of information and communication technologies in effective and responsive participatory democracy.
Introduction
E-government and democracy, fused together, are one piece of the e-democracy puzzle. Whether it is online campaigning, lobbying, activism, political news, or citizen discussions, the politics and governance of today are going online around the world. What is unknown, is whether politics and governance “as we know it” is actually changing as it goes online.
From the perspective of each government, civil society, or business organization, it is relatively easy to explore our institutional role in building participatory democracy online. Taking the whole situation into account is the difficult challenge. We are not building in a vacuum, nor are we developing our efforts in a constant environment. In the end, the only people who are experiencing the totality of the emerging democratic information-age are citizens or e-citizens.
This research takes a comprehensive look at the democratic outcomes that can be sought by government, civil society, and others in order to deepen and enhance participatory democracy online. With a particular focus on e-government and democracy, the vision for online-enhanced participatory democracy, or “e-democracy, ” relies on an incremental model of development that involves the many democratic sectors and their institutions across society.
The democratic institutions of government (including representative bodies and elected officials), the media, political parties and interest groups, as well as citizens themselves, are going online across the world. The question is not - will we have e-democracy? It exists today based on the positive and negative uses of this medium by democratic institutions, non-democratic actors, and citizens. The real question is – knowing where we are and what is possible, what kind of e-democracy can or, better yet, should we build?
Governments, as a public institutions and guardians of democracy, need to play a proactive role in the online world. First, they need to maintain existing democratic practices despite pressures coming from the information-age. Second, they need to incorporate and adapt online strategies and technologies to lead efforts that expand and enhance participatory democracy. Deepening citizen participation in democracy is vital to ensuring that governments at all levels and in all countries, can both accommodate the will of their people and more effectively meet public challenges in the information-age.
The path toward information-age democracy is a deliberate one. Political and social expectations and behavior change too slowly to expect information and communication technologies (ICTs) to give us a direct, uncomplicated path to greater participatory democracy. The is no “leap frog” path that easily leads to responsive governance that supports human and economic development. The e-democracy path needs to be mapped out, so it can be traveled with confident and assured steps.
This article explores the following ICT-enabled path with the governmental perspective in mind:
1. Understanding “as is” political and governance online activity by establishing baseline measurements, including current citizen experiences.
2. Documenting government best practice examples and the sharing of results.
3. Building citizen demand and civil society activity.
4. Spreading practice and creating more deliberative options and tools.
Analysis focuses on the second path, comments on the third, and based on that analysis, explores the fourth. This pragmatic approach is essential to developing sustained activity across our many and diverse democracies. Today, it is very easy to dismiss the democratic potential of the Internet because it did not deliver the revolution hyped in early media coverage. This paper looks beyond the hype.
Even in the most democracy-friendly places, steps one and two are stumbling blocks. Tools being developed for step four are for the most part outside of government. Overall, the foundation of understanding, government practice, and citizen experience has not been fully explored or developed. Efforts to build ICT-enhanced participatory democracy may be delayed by those in power, if change promoted from the “outside” is highly politicized. Slow uptake is also possible if the use of ICTs for meaningful democratic participation is not seen as inevitable, even if a government agrees in principle that new forms of participation are desirable.
Only by demonstrating that participatory governance leads to better democratic outcomes - helping society develop and meet its political, social, economic and cultural goals - will ICTs in political participation become inevitable, well resourced, and fully implemented.
Initial Conclusions
Based on my decade of observations online and in-person visits to 23 countries, the potential benefit of ICTs in participatory democracy continues to grow around the world. Everyday, more citizens use the Internet around the world. More are applying it toward political and community purposes than the day before. Everyday, another government adds a new online feature designed to bring government and citizens closer.
As this potential grows, the reality is that what most people and governments actually experience remains little changed. If citizens and governments are currently satisfied with the current state of their democracy, there is little incentive to accelerate or invest in efforts that seek to improve governance and citizen participation. However, if there is a desire to improve engagement, the often cost-effective potential of ICTs should be applied toward this goal along with complementary strategies and reforms. As some had mistakenly hoped, the existence of new technology does not necessitate its use nor does it change the innate behavior of citizens, politicians, or civil servants. For the most part, we are not experiencing an inherently democratic and “disruptive technology” that is forcing revolutionary change.
Welcome to the democratic ICT evolution. Therefore, from an incremental evolutionary perspective, e-government already impacts participatory democracy in the following areas:
1. Where there is a historical, political or cultural basis for a more active civil society and government facilitated participatory and consultative activity.
2. Where the technology has allowed emerging interest in participatory democracy to come into fruition at a lower cost that avoids economic or government controls on traditional media. This assumes that the legal or personal security consequences of online political and media activities do not outweigh the perceived benefits of those taking risks.
3. Where the competitive political environment encourages the institutions of democracy from parliaments, elected officials, the executive, political parties, interest groups, and the media to bring political activities online. These activities often promote participation to the extent that they further the interests of each institution.
Again, based on my observations, I predict that in the near future the democratic ICT evolution can be taken further and deepen democracy in the following places:
1. Where governments undertake e-democracy/e-participation as well as general civic engagement/consultation policy work and allocate specific resources to such activities.
2. Where e-government service delivery efforts and public portal developments reach a high state of development and maturation. This makes it obvious that previous government policy comments about the democratizing potential of the Internet must receive full consideration or be dropped. When complemented by top-level political direction and some manifestation of “demand” from citizens, e-democracy in government will have significant potential.
3. Where civil society led efforts work to establish information-age public spheres or online commons specifically designed to encourage political and issue-based conversation, discussion, and debate among citizens and their governments. The online public sphere needs to play a public agenda-setting and opinion formation role. With proper resources, structure, and trust, it can play a deliberative role in public decision-making.
4. At levels of government closer the people. It is well known that people tend to participate if they feel their participation makes a difference. At more local levels of government, the use of ICTs in governance will be easier for a broader cross-section of citizens to see the results of their enhanced participation. Also at this level, citizen-led efforts can have the larger lasting impact on public agenda-setting from the “outside.” (full paper)
|
REPRESENTATION AND CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN THE INFORMATION-AGE
Linkedin.com is a pretty effective service. I've met several interesting people through this professional online network. One of them recently, was Steven Clift, a leading speaker and proponent of e-government and democracy. He's visiting Seoul March 29th-30th, so if you're interested in hearing him joining him for a discussion just email me or visit his website. The follow is an excerpt from his paper on this subject matter:
E-GOVERNMENT AND DEMOCRACY:
Representation and Citizen Engagement in the Information-Age
By Steven Clift
This article is based on research provided to the United Nations – UNPAN/DESA for the 2003 World Public Sector Report.
Summary
Leading governments, with democratic intent, are incorporating information and communication technologies into their e-government activities. This trend necessitates the establishment of outcomes and goals to guide such efforts. By utilizing the best practices, technologies, and strategies we will deepen democracy and ensure representation and citizen engagement in the information age. It is upon this foundation that opportunities for greater online engagement and deliberation among citizens and their governments will demonstrate the value of information and communication technologies in effective and responsive participatory democracy.
Introduction
E-government and democracy, fused together, are one piece of the e-democracy puzzle. Whether it is online campaigning, lobbying, activism, political news, or citizen discussions, the politics and governance of today are going online around the world. What is unknown, is whether politics and governance “as we know it” is actually changing as it goes online.
From the perspective of each government, civil society, or business organization, it is relatively easy to explore our institutional role in building participatory democracy online. Taking the whole situation into account is the difficult challenge. We are not building in a vacuum, nor are we developing our efforts in a constant environment. In the end, the only people who are experiencing the totality of the emerging democratic information-age are citizens or e-citizens.
This research takes a comprehensive look at the democratic outcomes that can be sought by government, civil society, and others in order to deepen and enhance participatory democracy online. With a particular focus on e-government and democracy, the vision for online-enhanced participatory democracy, or “e-democracy, ” relies on an incremental model of development that involves the many democratic sectors and their institutions across society.
The democratic institutions of government (including representative bodies and elected officials), the media, political parties and interest groups, as well as citizens themselves, are going online across the world. The question is not - will we have e-democracy? It exists today based on the positive and negative uses of this medium by democratic institutions, non-democratic actors, and citizens. The real question is – knowing where we are and what is possible, what kind of e-democracy can or, better yet, should we build?
Governments, as a public institutions and guardians of democracy, need to play a proactive role in the online world. First, they need to maintain existing democratic practices despite pressures coming from the information-age. Second, they need to incorporate and adapt online strategies and technologies to lead efforts that expand and enhance participatory democracy. Deepening citizen participation in democracy is vital to ensuring that governments at all levels and in all countries, can both accommodate the will of their people and more effectively meet public challenges in the information-age.
The path toward information-age democracy is a deliberate one. Political and social expectations and behavior change too slowly to expect information and communication technologies (ICTs) to give us a direct, uncomplicated path to greater participatory democracy. The is no “leap frog” path that easily leads to responsive governance that supports human and economic development. The e-democracy path needs to be mapped out, so it can be traveled with confident and assured steps.
This article explores the following ICT-enabled path with the governmental perspective in mind:
1. Understanding “as is” political and governance online activity by establishing baseline measurements, including current citizen experiences.
2. Documenting government best practice examples and the sharing of results.
3. Building citizen demand and civil society activity.
4. Spreading practice and creating more deliberative options and tools.
Analysis focuses on the second path, comments on the third, and based on that analysis, explores the fourth. This pragmatic approach is essential to developing sustained activity across our many and diverse democracies. Today, it is very easy to dismiss the democratic potential of the Internet because it did not deliver the revolution hyped in early media coverage. This paper looks beyond the hype.
Even in the most democracy-friendly places, steps one and two are stumbling blocks. Tools being developed for step four are for the most part outside of government. Overall, the foundation of understanding, government practice, and citizen experience has not been fully explored or developed. Efforts to build ICT-enhanced participatory democracy may be delayed by those in power, if change promoted from the “outside” is highly politicized. Slow uptake is also possible if the use of ICTs for meaningful democratic participation is not seen as inevitable, even if a government agrees in principle that new forms of participation are desirable.
Only by demonstrating that participatory governance leads to better democratic outcomes - helping society develop and meet its political, social, economic and cultural goals - will ICTs in political participation become inevitable, well resourced, and fully implemented.
Initial Conclusions
Based on my decade of observations online and in-person visits to 23 countries, the potential benefit of ICTs in participatory democracy continues to grow around the world. Everyday, more citizens use the Internet around the world. More are applying it toward political and community purposes than the day before. Everyday, another government adds a new online feature designed to bring government and citizens closer.
As this potential grows, the reality is that what most people and governments actually experience remains little changed. If citizens and governments are currently satisfied with the current state of their democracy, there is little incentive to accelerate or invest in efforts that seek to improve governance and citizen participation. However, if there is a desire to improve engagement, the often cost-effective potential of ICTs should be applied toward this goal along with complementary strategies and reforms. As some had mistakenly hoped, the existence of new technology does not necessitate its use nor does it change the innate behavior of citizens, politicians, or civil servants. For the most part, we are not experiencing an inherently democratic and “disruptive technology” that is forcing revolutionary change.
Welcome to the democratic ICT evolution. Therefore, from an incremental evolutionary perspective, e-government already impacts participatory democracy in the following areas:
1. Where there is a historical, political or cultural basis for a more active civil society and government facilitated participatory and consultative activity.
2. Where the technology has allowed emerging interest in participatory democracy to come into fruition at a lower cost that avoids economic or government controls on traditional media. This assumes that the legal or personal security consequences of online political and media activities do not outweigh the perceived benefits of those taking risks.
3. Where the competitive political environment encourages the institutions of democracy from parliaments, elected officials, the executive, political parties, interest groups, and the media to bring political activities online. These activities often promote participation to the extent that they further the interests of each institution.
Again, based on my observations, I predict that in the near future the democratic ICT evolution can be taken further and deepen democracy in the following places:
1. Where governments undertake e-democracy/e-participation as well as general civic engagement/consultation policy work and allocate specific resources to such activities.
2. Where e-government service delivery efforts and public portal developments reach a high state of development and maturation. This makes it obvious that previous government policy comments about the democratizing potential of the Internet must receive full consideration or be dropped. When complemented by top-level political direction and some manifestation of “demand” from citizens, e-democracy in government will have significant potential.
3. Where civil society led efforts work to establish information-age public spheres or online commons specifically designed to encourage political and issue-based conversation, discussion, and debate among citizens and their governments. The online public sphere needs to play a public agenda-setting and opinion formation role. With proper resources, structure, and trust, it can play a deliberative role in public decision-making.
4. At levels of government closer the people. It is well known that people tend to participate if they feel their participation makes a difference. At more local levels of government, the use of ICTs in governance will be easier for a broader cross-section of citizens to see the results of their enhanced participation. Also at this level, citizen-led efforts can have the larger lasting impact on public agenda-setting from the “outside.” (full paper)
SKYPE GETS $18.8 MILLION
Skype Dials Up $18.8M Series B Round
By VentureWire Staff Reporters
Skype Technologies, a peer-to-peer (P2P) telephone company that enables consumers to make free voice calls using broadband connections that is expected to announce it has raised $18.8 million in a Series B co-led by Draper Fisher Jurvetson and Index Ventures. The company said that the funds are earmarked for operations and product development.
|
Skype Dials Up $18.8M Series B Round
By VentureWire Staff Reporters
Skype Technologies, a peer-to-peer (P2P) telephone company that enables consumers to make free voice calls using broadband connections that is expected to announce it has raised $18.8 million in a Series B co-led by Draper Fisher Jurvetson and Index Ventures. The company said that the funds are earmarked for operations and product development.
WILL CHINESE OR U.S. COMPANIES LOSE OUT IN THE END?
Intel and Broadcom's China Headaches... Fortune Cookie Crumble?
China's growing arrogance and protectionist measures are beginning to bring forth questions for certain companies and industries on how much should they actually invest into China, what will the return on their investment be, and whether it is worth it at this juncture and early stage of China' growth to build a signficant presence their market.
These questions and others might be easy for some companies, such as Dell, HP, and KFC. But Intel and Broadcom are encountering some hurdles towards success in China's market. The following are a couple articles with slighty different spins on the same story. News.com explains:
"The Chinese government has passed a law stating that, starting June 1, all Wi-Fi chips sold must comply with the Wired Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure (WAPI) standard. The encryption algorithm was developed in China and is controlled by local Chinese companies." (full article)
TechWeb's Mobilepipeline headline reads, "China Tells Intel To Calm Down."
A little more sensational article, it quotes a Chinese official saying, "China is such a strategic market. I think Intel should calm down."
Overall, both articles reflect China's growing arrogance and long-term policy position to protect its domestic companies, and to rapidly acquire as much management know-how and technology from foreign companies. These are similar approaches that Japan and Korea have taken in targeted growth industries over the past decades. Japan and Korea in the early stages of their automobile markets completely blocked out foreign car-makers with high tariffs and policies allowing only a very minuscule presence.
In the wireless industry, Japan created their own standard, W-CDMA (Wide Band Code Division Multiple Access), with a similar intent as China, to protect their domestic market. In the end, the result hindered the long-term growth of their wireless companies. Korea went with Qualcomm's international accepted CDMA standard, and this resulted in their handset manufacturers' (e.g. Samsung, LG) effectively penetrating the U.S. and other global markets. The intent of China's economic policy makers are understood, but I don't know if it's the best approach for their nation and their corporations.
On the issue of forcing foreign companies, such as Intel and Broadcom, to create Wi-Fi joint ventures with one of the approved local WAPI standard companies creates a threat and loss potential (i.e. proprietary technology) that can scare off new entrants to the degree of preventing Chinese companies from obtaining what they want: management know-how and the transfer of technology.
Intel has already invest almost $1 billion into China, so they are going to work through this as much as they can. But for smaller companies and new entrants, it is a great concern.
The reality of the China market is that it is still like the Wild, Wild, West. The provinces are like cities dotted throughout the untamed West each with their own sheriffs and laws. Laws sometimes don't apply and even signed contracts don't mean much. I know of some Korean companies (favored technology partners with many Chinese companies) with signed agreements with wireless carriers and electronic manufacturers that have the most difficult time collecting their revenue or getting their domestic partners to execute on their contracts.
Korea is far more developed, but similar qualities can be seen and lessons learned for foreign partners new to Asia. When Costco initially entered the Korean market, it signed a joint venture with Shinsaegae, one of Korea's leading retailers. They created E-Mart, a Korean-style Costco, but then Shinsaegae broke the agreement (backstabbed) with Costco. Taking their know-how, but not paying the royalties. Costco re-entered the market on their own with some bitterness. Korea companies like to do and build things on their own and I have seen a similar quality in China. They will try to take and copy whatever they can get their hands on, and of course with the least amount of expenditure.
When Starbucks entered Korea a few years ago, it also signed with Shinsaegae as their domestic partner, but they came out with a favorable deal and Shinsaegae didn't. So I'm sure various industries and partners in China will also have numerous stories to tell.
So do U.S. and other foreign company take such risks to capture a piece of the China market, especially as more protectionist laws are created? How do they ensure their proprietary technologies will not be stolen and copied? How will China's legal system improve to protect foreign investors and partners? How long will China's corporate feifdoms continue?
The greater questions rest on China's policy-makers. Will this protectionist stance be better for Chinese companies or worse in the long-run? Will creating their own technology standards contain them to a domestic market of 235 million consumers, growing towards 1 billion, or allow them to dictate global standards? I really wonder how much thinking went into some of their policies and how many of them were dictated by the new rich in China.
|
Intel and Broadcom's China Headaches... Fortune Cookie Crumble?
China's growing arrogance and protectionist measures are beginning to bring forth questions for certain companies and industries on how much should they actually invest into China, what will the return on their investment be, and whether it is worth it at this juncture and early stage of China' growth to build a signficant presence their market.
These questions and others might be easy for some companies, such as Dell, HP, and KFC. But Intel and Broadcom are encountering some hurdles towards success in China's market. The following are a couple articles with slighty different spins on the same story. News.com explains:
"The Chinese government has passed a law stating that, starting June 1, all Wi-Fi chips sold must comply with the Wired Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure (WAPI) standard. The encryption algorithm was developed in China and is controlled by local Chinese companies." (full article)
TechWeb's Mobilepipeline headline reads, "China Tells Intel To Calm Down."
A little more sensational article, it quotes a Chinese official saying, "China is such a strategic market. I think Intel should calm down."
Overall, both articles reflect China's growing arrogance and long-term policy position to protect its domestic companies, and to rapidly acquire as much management know-how and technology from foreign companies. These are similar approaches that Japan and Korea have taken in targeted growth industries over the past decades. Japan and Korea in the early stages of their automobile markets completely blocked out foreign car-makers with high tariffs and policies allowing only a very minuscule presence.
In the wireless industry, Japan created their own standard, W-CDMA (Wide Band Code Division Multiple Access), with a similar intent as China, to protect their domestic market. In the end, the result hindered the long-term growth of their wireless companies. Korea went with Qualcomm's international accepted CDMA standard, and this resulted in their handset manufacturers' (e.g. Samsung, LG) effectively penetrating the U.S. and other global markets. The intent of China's economic policy makers are understood, but I don't know if it's the best approach for their nation and their corporations.
On the issue of forcing foreign companies, such as Intel and Broadcom, to create Wi-Fi joint ventures with one of the approved local WAPI standard companies creates a threat and loss potential (i.e. proprietary technology) that can scare off new entrants to the degree of preventing Chinese companies from obtaining what they want: management know-how and the transfer of technology.
Intel has already invest almost $1 billion into China, so they are going to work through this as much as they can. But for smaller companies and new entrants, it is a great concern.
The reality of the China market is that it is still like the Wild, Wild, West. The provinces are like cities dotted throughout the untamed West each with their own sheriffs and laws. Laws sometimes don't apply and even signed contracts don't mean much. I know of some Korean companies (favored technology partners with many Chinese companies) with signed agreements with wireless carriers and electronic manufacturers that have the most difficult time collecting their revenue or getting their domestic partners to execute on their contracts.
Korea is far more developed, but similar qualities can be seen and lessons learned for foreign partners new to Asia. When Costco initially entered the Korean market, it signed a joint venture with Shinsaegae, one of Korea's leading retailers. They created E-Mart, a Korean-style Costco, but then Shinsaegae broke the agreement (backstabbed) with Costco. Taking their know-how, but not paying the royalties. Costco re-entered the market on their own with some bitterness. Korea companies like to do and build things on their own and I have seen a similar quality in China. They will try to take and copy whatever they can get their hands on, and of course with the least amount of expenditure.
When Starbucks entered Korea a few years ago, it also signed with Shinsaegae as their domestic partner, but they came out with a favorable deal and Shinsaegae didn't. So I'm sure various industries and partners in China will also have numerous stories to tell.
So do U.S. and other foreign company take such risks to capture a piece of the China market, especially as more protectionist laws are created? How do they ensure their proprietary technologies will not be stolen and copied? How will China's legal system improve to protect foreign investors and partners? How long will China's corporate feifdoms continue?
The greater questions rest on China's policy-makers. Will this protectionist stance be better for Chinese companies or worse in the long-run? Will creating their own technology standards contain them to a domestic market of 235 million consumers, growing towards 1 billion, or allow them to dictate global standards? I really wonder how much thinking went into some of their policies and how many of them were dictated by the new rich in China.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
9/11 REVISITED
Fear is Tyranny's Tool
With Spain's recent election results and some of the extreme liberal reactions floating around, I decide to post a piece I was holding on to until the right moment. Well, I guess this is the right time. Terrorists or tyranny should never dictate our lives and the decisions critical to our nation, its future, and the world's stability. Once you give into fear or fears of violence and death, you have already lost your freedom and the ability to act responsibly.
I'm reminded of Saving Private Ryan when the translator was frozen in fear when his fellow grunt was asking for his help. It seemed like a long minute and struggle as the solider sat on the stairs simply listening to the death of his platoon member. The German solider got up and walked down the stairs past him since he remember that it was the translator that basically saved his life by letting him go free a few days before... I haven't seen the movie in a while so I might not remember some details.
I remember feeling disgust and a small ounce of sympathy for the young, solider struck with fear. I'm not scared of many things in life and it would be second-nature for me to help my friend or associate in such desparate need, so that scene in the movie made my stomach turn with disgust against that solider. In a remote part of my heart, I also felt sympathy and acknowledged that he wasn't an experienced combat trooper. He was a pencil-pusher thrusted into the heart of battle.
Near the end of the movie he was almost vindicated when he killed the same German solider, but it was more revenge and cleansing of his past shame than vindication for a life lost. The same thing will happen if the war on terror is scaled back by the socialists in Spain, our government if John Kerry wins, and if other nations give into the fear created by al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The terrorists acts will continue, if not increase, and these government will realize after a few years that being preemptive and on the offensive was the right approach.
So below is a piece entitled, "Ground Zero: A Journal," by Vince Druding, who did the same leadership training program I did but about five years after me. It's a good reminder to what we are fighting for and why we should never lose our resolve. Also below is a excerpt from John Derbyshire's, a columnist for the National Review, December 6, 2001 entry:
"...There has been, it seems to me, surprisingly little really first-class reporting from New York's "Ground Zero." Where are the products of all those schools of journalism that now infest the academic scene? Perhaps the magnitude of that horror is too much to be encompassed by journalists trained to sniff out the latest bogus health scare, political sex scandal, inconsequential pseudo-news of the age that ended on September 11th.
Where really good reporting has come out, it has often been from unexpected and seriously un-famous quarters. There is an example in the current (December 2001) issue of Father Richard John Neuhaus's monthly First Things: a piece simply titled "Ground Zero: A Journal," by a writer completely unknown to me, name of Vincent Druding, bylined as "a Coro Fellow in Public Affairs in New York City," whatever that means. Whatever it means, Druding's beautiful and moving record of his Ground Zero experiences is one I feel sure I shall not be forgetting anytime soon.?
Ground Zero: A Journal
by Vincent Druding
FIRST THINGS, the Journal of Religion and Public Life
December 2001
September 11 was to be my first day of work at a new job in downtown Manhattan. Though New York was still very new to me, it was immediately obvious that something was terribly wrong. As I climbed the stairs of the subway just a few blocks from the World Trade Center, there was a palpable feeling of panic in the air as people stared, horrified, into the sky. I followed their gaze upward and I instantly understood. Smoke and fire were gushing from a gaping hole in the smooth, silvery surface of the right-hand tower.
I asked someone nearby if he knew what had happened, and he said it was a bomb. Another man walked over and declared, "No, it was a plane, a plane flew right into building. . . ." Then an enormous explosion drowned out his words. Above our heads, an orange fireball swallowed the top of the second tower, as clouds of paper filled the sky above us. Hundreds of people began scattering. I ran across the street to the Municipal Building and up to a shrieking woman who stammered through her sobs that she had seen a large blue and white plane slam into the building. We stared slack-jawed as sections of the building's metallic facade fell in chunks to the ground. It took a few moments until we realized that some of those falling pieces were not metal at all, but rather human beings leaping eighty or more stories to their deaths - right before our eyes. All I could think to do was make the sign of the cross.
As I stood there in disbelief, a man next to me with a messaging pager said that the Pentagon had just been hit. I grabbed at his pager to read it for myself. Then came the confusion and rumors on the street: "The Capitol's been attacked!" "The State Department has been bombed!" "The Supreme Court is in flames!" "Camp David is burning!" "A plane is on its way to the White House!"
During all this, the fire trucks had been racing past on their way to the Towers. I must have seen twelve of them rush past our corner. In the coming hours and days, I often wondered how many of the men on those trucks died just minutes later.
Soon the NYPD asked us to evacuate the area. It was only a minute after we began to walk uptown and away from the Towers that the sound of several claps of thunder began to rip through the air just over my shoulder. I turned around and saw with my own eyes a sight of pure horror, as the left-hand tower began to collapse into a massive white cloud. Our walk quickly became a run, and then a stampede. (full article)
|
Fear is Tyranny's Tool
With Spain's recent election results and some of the extreme liberal reactions floating around, I decide to post a piece I was holding on to until the right moment. Well, I guess this is the right time. Terrorists or tyranny should never dictate our lives and the decisions critical to our nation, its future, and the world's stability. Once you give into fear or fears of violence and death, you have already lost your freedom and the ability to act responsibly.
I'm reminded of Saving Private Ryan when the translator was frozen in fear when his fellow grunt was asking for his help. It seemed like a long minute and struggle as the solider sat on the stairs simply listening to the death of his platoon member. The German solider got up and walked down the stairs past him since he remember that it was the translator that basically saved his life by letting him go free a few days before... I haven't seen the movie in a while so I might not remember some details.
I remember feeling disgust and a small ounce of sympathy for the young, solider struck with fear. I'm not scared of many things in life and it would be second-nature for me to help my friend or associate in such desparate need, so that scene in the movie made my stomach turn with disgust against that solider. In a remote part of my heart, I also felt sympathy and acknowledged that he wasn't an experienced combat trooper. He was a pencil-pusher thrusted into the heart of battle.
Near the end of the movie he was almost vindicated when he killed the same German solider, but it was more revenge and cleansing of his past shame than vindication for a life lost. The same thing will happen if the war on terror is scaled back by the socialists in Spain, our government if John Kerry wins, and if other nations give into the fear created by al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The terrorists acts will continue, if not increase, and these government will realize after a few years that being preemptive and on the offensive was the right approach.
So below is a piece entitled, "Ground Zero: A Journal," by Vince Druding, who did the same leadership training program I did but about five years after me. It's a good reminder to what we are fighting for and why we should never lose our resolve. Also below is a excerpt from John Derbyshire's, a columnist for the National Review, December 6, 2001 entry:
"...There has been, it seems to me, surprisingly little really first-class reporting from New York's "Ground Zero." Where are the products of all those schools of journalism that now infest the academic scene? Perhaps the magnitude of that horror is too much to be encompassed by journalists trained to sniff out the latest bogus health scare, political sex scandal, inconsequential pseudo-news of the age that ended on September 11th.
Where really good reporting has come out, it has often been from unexpected and seriously un-famous quarters. There is an example in the current (December 2001) issue of Father Richard John Neuhaus's monthly First Things: a piece simply titled "Ground Zero: A Journal," by a writer completely unknown to me, name of Vincent Druding, bylined as "a Coro Fellow in Public Affairs in New York City," whatever that means. Whatever it means, Druding's beautiful and moving record of his Ground Zero experiences is one I feel sure I shall not be forgetting anytime soon.?
Ground Zero: A Journal
by Vincent Druding
FIRST THINGS, the Journal of Religion and Public Life
December 2001
September 11 was to be my first day of work at a new job in downtown Manhattan. Though New York was still very new to me, it was immediately obvious that something was terribly wrong. As I climbed the stairs of the subway just a few blocks from the World Trade Center, there was a palpable feeling of panic in the air as people stared, horrified, into the sky. I followed their gaze upward and I instantly understood. Smoke and fire were gushing from a gaping hole in the smooth, silvery surface of the right-hand tower.
I asked someone nearby if he knew what had happened, and he said it was a bomb. Another man walked over and declared, "No, it was a plane, a plane flew right into building. . . ." Then an enormous explosion drowned out his words. Above our heads, an orange fireball swallowed the top of the second tower, as clouds of paper filled the sky above us. Hundreds of people began scattering. I ran across the street to the Municipal Building and up to a shrieking woman who stammered through her sobs that she had seen a large blue and white plane slam into the building. We stared slack-jawed as sections of the building's metallic facade fell in chunks to the ground. It took a few moments until we realized that some of those falling pieces were not metal at all, but rather human beings leaping eighty or more stories to their deaths - right before our eyes. All I could think to do was make the sign of the cross.
As I stood there in disbelief, a man next to me with a messaging pager said that the Pentagon had just been hit. I grabbed at his pager to read it for myself. Then came the confusion and rumors on the street: "The Capitol's been attacked!" "The State Department has been bombed!" "The Supreme Court is in flames!" "Camp David is burning!" "A plane is on its way to the White House!"
During all this, the fire trucks had been racing past on their way to the Towers. I must have seen twelve of them rush past our corner. In the coming hours and days, I often wondered how many of the men on those trucks died just minutes later.
Soon the NYPD asked us to evacuate the area. It was only a minute after we began to walk uptown and away from the Towers that the sound of several claps of thunder began to rip through the air just over my shoulder. I turned around and saw with my own eyes a sight of pure horror, as the left-hand tower began to collapse into a massive white cloud. Our walk quickly became a run, and then a stampede. (full article)
AL-QAEDA GETS WHAT IT WANTS
Socialists Oust Conversatives in Spain
I'm very disappointed that the ruling party in Spain was ousted due to backlash on the recent bombing in Madrid and Spain's support of the Iraqi invasion. This was a dramatic upset in Sunday's election and the wrong gut reaction by the Spanish people.
Powerline has a good commentary on some liberal reactions to Spain's election and a good quote, "Cowardice has rarely been so richly rewarded."
|
Socialists Oust Conversatives in Spain
I'm very disappointed that the ruling party in Spain was ousted due to backlash on the recent bombing in Madrid and Spain's support of the Iraqi invasion. This was a dramatic upset in Sunday's election and the wrong gut reaction by the Spanish people.
Powerline has a good commentary on some liberal reactions to Spain's election and a good quote, "Cowardice has rarely been so richly rewarded."
Friday, March 12, 2004
PATENT SYSTEM AND HEALTHCARE
From Tech Central Stations's Andres Mejia-Vergnaud
"If patents did not exist, half of you would be dead today."
Good and informative article. Check it out:
The Invisible Healing Hand
By Andres Mejia-Vergnaud
March 12, 2004
The rise and growth of popular sentiments against globalization in the developed world is one of the most interesting features of our times. In spite of the evidence that shows how open markets and liberal democracy help the poor, thousands of rich-country intellectuals and activists have engaged in intensive high-impact campaigns against these institutions. Lacking evidence to support their sometimes exotic claims, activists have resorted to emotional strategies aimed at "convincing" people in their hearts that globalization is wrong. One of the targets of these campaigns has been the Intellectual Property (IP) system, especially when applied to medicines and health-care technologies.
Activists have blamed multinational corporations and the patent system for the health-care problems of the third world. However, in spite of the high-impact that this strategy is having on public opinion, the truth is that a closer examination of the issue will easily prove the activists wrong. In first place, we would discover how the problem of inadequate health care in the third world is a consequence of a complex web of political and social problems, none of them related to the patent system. Secondly, we would come to a certainly fascinating discovery: it is precisely in the case for pharmaceutical patents where the basic principles of political economy can be seen in their full logic. (full article)
|
From Tech Central Stations's Andres Mejia-Vergnaud
"If patents did not exist, half of you would be dead today."
Good and informative article. Check it out:
The Invisible Healing Hand
By Andres Mejia-Vergnaud
March 12, 2004
The rise and growth of popular sentiments against globalization in the developed world is one of the most interesting features of our times. In spite of the evidence that shows how open markets and liberal democracy help the poor, thousands of rich-country intellectuals and activists have engaged in intensive high-impact campaigns against these institutions. Lacking evidence to support their sometimes exotic claims, activists have resorted to emotional strategies aimed at "convincing" people in their hearts that globalization is wrong. One of the targets of these campaigns has been the Intellectual Property (IP) system, especially when applied to medicines and health-care technologies.
Activists have blamed multinational corporations and the patent system for the health-care problems of the third world. However, in spite of the high-impact that this strategy is having on public opinion, the truth is that a closer examination of the issue will easily prove the activists wrong. In first place, we would discover how the problem of inadequate health care in the third world is a consequence of a complex web of political and social problems, none of them related to the patent system. Secondly, we would come to a certainly fascinating discovery: it is precisely in the case for pharmaceutical patents where the basic principles of political economy can be seen in their full logic. (full article)
KERRY REVEALED... AGAIN
"Most Crooked, You Know, Lying Group of People..."
Hugh Hewitt has a great commentary on Kerry's recent microphone mess. And about the double standard of the majority of media outlets in the U.S.
|
"Most Crooked, You Know, Lying Group of People..."
Hugh Hewitt has a great commentary on Kerry's recent microphone mess. And about the double standard of the majority of media outlets in the U.S.
THE SAUDI WAR ON BUSH
Another Great Article by The American Thinker
March 10th, 2004
Saudi Arabia has launched an undeclared war on George W. Bush. This simple fact must be understood by policy and strategy elites, the press, and the general electorate. Otherwise, the Saudis may well succeed in their tacit campaign to sabotage the long term success of America’s war on terror, by engineering the electoral defeat of George W. Bush in November. (full article)
|
Another Great Article by The American Thinker
March 10th, 2004
Saudi Arabia has launched an undeclared war on George W. Bush. This simple fact must be understood by policy and strategy elites, the press, and the general electorate. Otherwise, the Saudis may well succeed in their tacit campaign to sabotage the long term success of America’s war on terror, by engineering the electoral defeat of George W. Bush in November. (full article)
FORMER DAEWOO EXEC SUPPOSEDLY COMMITS SUICIDE
President Roh Impeached Today for Election-Law Violations
I was just planning on posting the news on the former Daewoo executive's suicide, but during lunch today news flashed across Seoul about President Roh's unprecedented impeachment... comprehensive article from Bloomberg. Very interested times in Korea now. I have to wait a day or so before I write more.
As for this apparent suicide, I have to be a conspiracy theorist. Why would this former executive kill himself over this issue before it even went to trial? The consequences were greater for President Roh and his family. Also his quote from the excerpt below furthers the fishiness of the situation, or just confirms Roh is an idiot:
Nam Sang-kook, former president of Daewoo Construction and Engineering Co., jumped into the Han River in an apparent suicide... Nam, 59, was under a prosecution investigation into an allegation he gave 30 million won ($25,600) to President Roh Moo-hyun's brother in return for a business favor.
Nam's jump reportedly occurred soon after Roh's morning news conference. Roh said during the news conference that Nam came to his brother, Roh Geon-pyeong, and gave the money in return for helping Nam extend his CEO status in Daewoo. Nam headed the Daewoo affiliate from 1999 to 2003.
Roh said his brother gave the money back. "I hope people like Daewoo's former president, who went to a good school and succeeded in life, would stop coming to a country person like my brother to ask for favors," Roh said. (full article)
|
President Roh Impeached Today for Election-Law Violations
I was just planning on posting the news on the former Daewoo executive's suicide, but during lunch today news flashed across Seoul about President Roh's unprecedented impeachment... comprehensive article from Bloomberg. Very interested times in Korea now. I have to wait a day or so before I write more.
As for this apparent suicide, I have to be a conspiracy theorist. Why would this former executive kill himself over this issue before it even went to trial? The consequences were greater for President Roh and his family. Also his quote from the excerpt below furthers the fishiness of the situation, or just confirms Roh is an idiot:
Nam Sang-kook, former president of Daewoo Construction and Engineering Co., jumped into the Han River in an apparent suicide... Nam, 59, was under a prosecution investigation into an allegation he gave 30 million won ($25,600) to President Roh Moo-hyun's brother in return for a business favor.
Nam's jump reportedly occurred soon after Roh's morning news conference. Roh said during the news conference that Nam came to his brother, Roh Geon-pyeong, and gave the money in return for helping Nam extend his CEO status in Daewoo. Nam headed the Daewoo affiliate from 1999 to 2003.
Roh said his brother gave the money back. "I hope people like Daewoo's former president, who went to a good school and succeeded in life, would stop coming to a country person like my brother to ask for favors," Roh said. (full article)
EVIL EMPIRE STRIKES BACK!
Microsoft Behind Funding of SCO
They are truly the evil empire. They are helping to back SCO, the company who claims to own the licensing rights for Linux and is suing companies for payment of those rights. As you might know, Linux is a threat to Microsoft's server business.
"Investment company BayStar Capital has confirmed ties between two Linux foes, saying Thursday that a Microsoft referral led to $50 million in BayStar funding for the SCO Group."
|
Microsoft Behind Funding of SCO
They are truly the evil empire. They are helping to back SCO, the company who claims to own the licensing rights for Linux and is suing companies for payment of those rights. As you might know, Linux is a threat to Microsoft's server business.
"Investment company BayStar Capital has confirmed ties between two Linux foes, saying Thursday that a Microsoft referral led to $50 million in BayStar funding for the SCO Group."
Thursday, March 11, 2004
ANTI-WAR ADVOCATE CHARGED WITH SPYING
Messed up. One thing is to be anti-war, but anti-America? The degree that some of these left-wing whackos are going to prevent any "success" of the Iraqi War ridiculous and absurd: "Ex-US Senate Aide Charged with Giving Iraq Secrets."
Also if you check out the photos on the site, Susan Lindauer's car has a bumper sticker, 'War Is Not The Answer,' from the Friends Committee on National Legislation, an anti-war group.
|
Messed up. One thing is to be anti-war, but anti-America? The degree that some of these left-wing whackos are going to prevent any "success" of the Iraqi War ridiculous and absurd: "Ex-US Senate Aide Charged with Giving Iraq Secrets."
Also if you check out the photos on the site, Susan Lindauer's car has a bumper sticker, 'War Is Not The Answer,' from the Friends Committee on National Legislation, an anti-war group.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
GRASSO'S GREED... SHOULD HE RETURN THE MONEY?
Former NYSE Chairman is a Symbol of the Hubris and Greed on Wall Street
I definitely believe Grasso should return a significant portion his compensation (didn't get a chance to make any calculations yet), and he would be unethical not to do so. Without knowing what past NYSE Chairs received, I see him as a public servant and regulatory offical who should be paid in six figures and to think he got paid more than the heads of Goldman Sachs, Charles Schwab and Merrill Lynch reveals his greed and ego. Link to original article with bits pasted below:
Should Dick Grasso Return the Dough?
It's today's $139.5 million question: Why doesn't Richard Grasso, former chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, give back at least some of the nearly $140 million in compensation that he was granted by the NYSE's board of directors? That the question is even being raised, of course, speaks to the sudden change in thinking about such issues as corporate governance and executive compensation. While some say that the New York Stock Exchange should be held as accountable as Grasso, right now it's the former chairman who is facing the most outrage. The sentiment among corporate governance experts at Wharton is that Grasso should a) give some of the money back, or b) at least start talking about giving it back.
"I can understand why the public would think he is greedy," says Wharton legal studies professor Thomas W. Dunfee. "No question but that social norms are changing in this area. One of the charges brought by the dissidents against Michael Eisner is that he received a $5 million bonus in a year in which the market value of Disney declined substantially."
There's no agreeement, however, on whether returning some of the money will help quell the barrage of criticism that Grasso has faced over the past few months...
Yes, but it may be too late for Grasso to win back his reputation, even if he returns the money or a substantial portion of it, according to Wharton accounting professor David F. Larcker, an expert in the design of executive compensation plans. "Let's say he gave back $100 million. Would that do him any good? They would say he should not have taken so much in the first place. He might think, 'I am going to get the bad parts of this anyway, so I might as well keep it all.' From an ethical point of view, he should return some of it, but he should not have taken it in the first place. It is like trying to turn back the hands of time."
.....
Conscience, not Corporate Governance
Wharton management professor Martin J. Conyon has a different perspective on the situation. "The compensation committee and the board signed off on [the package], so in this regard the system worked as it should. A contract was struck and, assuming there was nothing unusual about the contract, that is the deal. One side agreed on a payment for services, those services presumably were rendered, and that's that... The tone in corporate America has certainly changed since the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley and the high profile corporate scandals. However, returning compensation is probably a matter of conscience rather than corporate governance."
.....
Mittelstaedt doesn't put a dollar figure on just how much Grasso should offer to return. "I would say he has got to negotiate something. In the current environment he is just going to make it worse by stonewalling." The amount of money Grasso received was "astronomical for a job that is basically a regulator's job," adds Larcker, echoing widespread sentiment. "The other [piece of information] I found amazing was that the exchange's compensation committee was surprised at the sum of money paid out... There were some odd circumstances surrounding it."
.....
Grasso's $30.5 million compensation package for 2001 - including salary and deferred payments - was higher than what the chief executives of Goldman Sachs, Charles Schwab and Merrill Lynch took home that year. Among key financial regulatory figures, Alan Greenspan's salary at the helm of the Federal Reserve is $172,000. William Donaldson, head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, earns about $140,000.
.....
At the end of the day, however, personal integrity is what still counts above all. Mittelstaedt notes that L. Dennis Kozlowski, now being tried on charges of grand larceny, attended a Wharton executive education course six years ago. “He talked about how important good corporate governance is to a well-run company. Clearly integrity is not about taking courses but about one’s own moral compass.”
|
Former NYSE Chairman is a Symbol of the Hubris and Greed on Wall Street
I definitely believe Grasso should return a significant portion his compensation (didn't get a chance to make any calculations yet), and he would be unethical not to do so. Without knowing what past NYSE Chairs received, I see him as a public servant and regulatory offical who should be paid in six figures and to think he got paid more than the heads of Goldman Sachs, Charles Schwab and Merrill Lynch reveals his greed and ego. Link to original article with bits pasted below:
Should Dick Grasso Return the Dough?
It's today's $139.5 million question: Why doesn't Richard Grasso, former chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, give back at least some of the nearly $140 million in compensation that he was granted by the NYSE's board of directors? That the question is even being raised, of course, speaks to the sudden change in thinking about such issues as corporate governance and executive compensation. While some say that the New York Stock Exchange should be held as accountable as Grasso, right now it's the former chairman who is facing the most outrage. The sentiment among corporate governance experts at Wharton is that Grasso should a) give some of the money back, or b) at least start talking about giving it back.
"I can understand why the public would think he is greedy," says Wharton legal studies professor Thomas W. Dunfee. "No question but that social norms are changing in this area. One of the charges brought by the dissidents against Michael Eisner is that he received a $5 million bonus in a year in which the market value of Disney declined substantially."
There's no agreeement, however, on whether returning some of the money will help quell the barrage of criticism that Grasso has faced over the past few months...
Yes, but it may be too late for Grasso to win back his reputation, even if he returns the money or a substantial portion of it, according to Wharton accounting professor David F. Larcker, an expert in the design of executive compensation plans. "Let's say he gave back $100 million. Would that do him any good? They would say he should not have taken so much in the first place. He might think, 'I am going to get the bad parts of this anyway, so I might as well keep it all.' From an ethical point of view, he should return some of it, but he should not have taken it in the first place. It is like trying to turn back the hands of time."
.....
Conscience, not Corporate Governance
Wharton management professor Martin J. Conyon has a different perspective on the situation. "The compensation committee and the board signed off on [the package], so in this regard the system worked as it should. A contract was struck and, assuming there was nothing unusual about the contract, that is the deal. One side agreed on a payment for services, those services presumably were rendered, and that's that... The tone in corporate America has certainly changed since the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley and the high profile corporate scandals. However, returning compensation is probably a matter of conscience rather than corporate governance."
.....
Mittelstaedt doesn't put a dollar figure on just how much Grasso should offer to return. "I would say he has got to negotiate something. In the current environment he is just going to make it worse by stonewalling." The amount of money Grasso received was "astronomical for a job that is basically a regulator's job," adds Larcker, echoing widespread sentiment. "The other [piece of information] I found amazing was that the exchange's compensation committee was surprised at the sum of money paid out... There were some odd circumstances surrounding it."
.....
Grasso's $30.5 million compensation package for 2001 - including salary and deferred payments - was higher than what the chief executives of Goldman Sachs, Charles Schwab and Merrill Lynch took home that year. Among key financial regulatory figures, Alan Greenspan's salary at the helm of the Federal Reserve is $172,000. William Donaldson, head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, earns about $140,000.
.....
At the end of the day, however, personal integrity is what still counts above all. Mittelstaedt notes that L. Dennis Kozlowski, now being tried on charges of grand larceny, attended a Wharton executive education course six years ago. “He talked about how important good corporate governance is to a well-run company. Clearly integrity is not about taking courses but about one’s own moral compass.”
CHINA'S BOOMING INTERNET
Will There Be Another Bubble?
From BusinessWeek (Asia Edition Cover Story):
China.Net
China will soon be No. 1 in Web users. That will unleash a world of opportunity
BusinessWeek
By Bruce Einhorn in Zhuhai
March 15, 2004
For years, China's Kingsoft Corp. struggled to make money selling consumer software. Although its products were popular, the company couldn't get people to pay for them -- because of rampant piracy. Then last year, the company, based in the southern city of Zhuhai, shifted its focus to the Internet.
In September, Kingsoft launched Sword Online, a rollicking game that lets players create their own characters, strike cyberalliances, and fight virtual attackers. The new business is taking off: In just six months, more than 1.7 million people have signed up, paying either $4.20 a month or $1.20 for 25 hours. Kingsoft expects the game's success to help it double revenues this year, to about $20 million, expand into other Asian markets, and become a world-class innovator in online gaming. "We want to be the pioneers," says Oliver Wang, Kingsoft's chief technology officer. "Let other people copy us."
Such dreams may seem outsize, but Chinese dot-commers have good reason to think big. China's Internet is booming. More than 22 million newbies piled on to the Web last year, bringing the total number of Chinese online to 80 million. That makes China second only to the U.S. in Internet subscribers -- and the Middle Kingdom won't remain No. 2 for long. By 2006, it is expected to overtake the U.S., with 153 million Chinese online, estimates investment bank Piper Jaffray & Co. The surge is being driven by several factors, including a strong economy that's letting people buy PCs and the opportunity the Net provides to skirt China's tight government censorship. "The Internet is growing like crazy here," says Craig Watts, managing director of Norson Telecom Consulting in Beijing.
The expanding audience has set off a building spurt in recent months reminiscent of Silicon Valley in the late 1990s. Local businesses such as Kingsoft are moving onto the Net, staking a claim to the rich opportunities ahead. Foreign Web companies, including Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO ) and eBay Inc. (EBAY ), are making acquisitions to expand their operations in the country. And entrepreneurs from around the world are opening shop on China's Net. They range from Peggy Yu, a 38-year-old MBA from New York University who runs what she hopes will be the Amazon.com Inc. of China, to Li Ka-shing, the Hong Kong billionaire whose Internet portal, Tom Online Inc., expects to raise as much as $200 million in an initial public offering scheduled for this month.
Investors are just as gung ho about the market. Sina Corp., the largest Net portal in China, has seen its shares surge eightfold over the past year, to $45. After the strong IPO of travel site Ctrip.com in December, numerous companies, like Tom Online, are lining up to sell stock to a hungry public. One of the hottest prospects? Shanda Networking Development Co., a Shanghai online gambling outfit that is expected to raise as much as $200 million in an IPO scheduled for later this year. Even venture capitalists are getting bolder. In February, business-to-business auction site Alibaba.com landed $82 million from Fidelity Investments, Softbank, and other venture players -- the largest VC investment in a Chinese dot-com ever.
No question, China's Internet companies have lots of growing up to do. Add up the market caps of all the publicly traded players, and the total comes to less than $10 billion. That's one-quarter of an eBay, one-third of a Yahoo. In most markets, the Chinese dot-coms are well behind rivals in the U. S., Japan, and Korea. And just like in the U. S., the boom will probably lead to excess, with some poorly conceived businesses imploding.
CALLING THE TUNE. Still, look at what's happening from Zhuhai to Shanghai to Beijing, and you realize that the implications could be profound. So far, the Internet has been dominated by a single country -- the U.S. Now, China has the potential to become the second major power of the Digital Age. By 2006, it is expected to have more people on the Net, more broadband subscribers, and more mobile-phone customers than any nation on earth. "To have 300 million people in China use the Internet is a tiny issue," says Jack Ma, Alibaba's founder and CEO.
.....
While sheer size is the obvious reason for China's growing Net influence, the policies of the Chinese government are just as important. Under President Hu Jintao, the Beijing government is carefully nurturing local companies to help them compete in the global marketplace. Not content with low-end manufacturing, Beijing is determined to turn China into a high-tech force that can rival the U.S., Japan, and others in innovation. Already, the government has used the billions it spends on networking gear to help China's Huawei Technologies Co. and ZTE Corp. become world-class rivals to Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO ) and Nortel. Huawei's exports doubled last year, to more than $1 billion, out of $3.8 billion in total sales.
That may be a sign of what's to come. Beijing is trying to set the standards for several key Web technologies that may let the country's manufacturers become big players around the world. Take Wi-Fi, the wildly popular wireless technology. In December, Beijing mandated that a new Chinese encryption standard for Wi-Fi be used in all gear sold in the country after June 1. The move is necessary, officials say, to make Wi-Fi more secure. To comply with the rule, foreign companies have to share their product designs with one of the two dozen Chinese companies Beijing has designated as licensees of the standard. These companies integrate the standard into the designs and then help produce the equipment.
Howls of protest have come from American high-tech companies. Dennis Eaton, chairman of the Wi-Fi Alliance, says many of the trade group's members, which include Intel, Cisco, and Broadcom, are worried that they could lose their tech edge by disclosing chip designs and other intellectual property to potential Chinese rivals. He says some may even stop shipping Wi-Fi products to China this June. U.S. industry representatives in Washington and Beijing vow to fight the policy, which they say violates World Trade Organization rules (see the letter Bush Administration officials wrote to Beijing protesting Wi-Fi encryption standards). "It's a very ominous move for the Chinese government to take," says Anne Stevenson-Yang, managing director in Beijing of the U.S. Information Technology Office, a lobbying group for U.S. high-tech companies.
Even if the U.S. companies ultimately win in a WTO court, a legal battle still may be a losing proposition. A company such as Intel or Broadcom would have to forgo sales to China for years to prove its point. That's why Beijing's policies will probably help several Chinese tech companies follow in the footsteps of Huawei, becoming powerful enough to compete globally. Among those with the most potential are networking-gear maker Harbour Networks Co. and chipmaker Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp.
HOT MESSAGES. Focusing on the trade dispute, however, risks missing an important development in China's tech industry. Just as Beijing is trying to tip the scales for domestic manufacturers, local Net companies are coming up with promising innovations on their own. In part, that's because of the special characteristics of the Chinese market. Like the U.S., portals were the first Net companies to emerge in China. But the country's top three -- Sina (SINA ), Sohu (SOHU ), and NetEase (NTES ) -- soon found that, unlike their U.S. brethren, they couldn't rely on ad sales, since online advertising was scarce.
Instead, the companies in 2002 struck gold with paid messaging services. These are tailor-made for China, which has 286 million mobile-phone users, nearly double the number in the U.S. Through revenue-sharing deals with China's two state-owned cellular operators, the portals charge to send news updates, games, and online dating information to mobile phones...
Upstarts are experimenting with a wide range of paid content. One runaway success has been virtual games, played either online or on mobile phones. In many cases, thousands of people compete against one another at the same time, taking on game identities and amassing special powers over weeks or months. China's online game market is expected to grow fivefold by 2007, to $809 million, says IDC. Late last year, Mtone Wireless Corp. scored a hit with a mobile-phone game based on Cell Phone, a blockbuster Chinese movie about miscommunication and infidelity. In just three months, 500,000 people have signed up for the game. "The mobile Internet has really saved China's Internet industry," says Victor Wang, Mtone's CEO.
Certainly, China is playing catch-up in many Net markets. E-commerce, for example, has been slow to develop in China because so few people have credit cards and the postal service isn't reliable. But NYU MBA Yu is starting to make progress with Dangdang.com, a distinctly Chinese version of Amazon...
FACTORY FLOOR. So have business-to-business Net companies. At Alibaba, CEO Ma had to win over manufacturers worried about fraud when doing business with strangers over the Net. To help customers get up the Internet learning curve, Alibaba sends representatives to the factory floors of each new manufacturer to explain how the site works. Ma says more than 1 million companies have signed up to be listed on Alibaba's import-export site, each paying $5,000 a year. What attracted the record-breaking VC investment is Alibaba's potential: Companies from around the world can request bids from Chinese manufacturers for thousands of products from cookware to washing machines. Purchasers don't need a representative in China to buy directly from the manufacturers that often have the lowest costs in the world.
The fast-growing domestic market is giving Chinese equipment makers an edge. While the China market is open to foreigners and North American companies such as Lucent Technologies Inc. (LU ) and Nortel are winning contracts, local players such as Huawei and ZTE often enjoy better connections to government officials as well as lower manufacturing and R&D costs. And those companies are starting to expand beyond China. Huawei is better known, but rival ZTE is looking abroad too. Ling Dongsheng, general manager for Internet protocol equipment at ZTE, says the company wants to sell its networking gear in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America.
As Huawei and ZTE expand overseas, top U.S. high-tech companies are crying foul. They fear Beijing is becoming involved in setting technology standards specifically to give homegrown companies an edge in the global market...
SHARE A SECRET? Most worrisome is the prospect of having to share technology secrets with Chinese companies that could become competitors. That would be reminiscent of a national policy that was common during the 1990s that used to require multinationals interested in partnering with local companies to transfer technology to them, instead of simply licensing it to them. In early March, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and other Bush Administration officials sent a letter to China protesting the Wi-Fi policy.
Chinese officials say they don't understand what all the fuss is about. They argue that the new standard will make people feel more confident of the safety of Wi-Fi, which has been notoriously insecure. That will encourage people to adopt the technology and "will have a positive impact on wireless development in China," says Huang Chengqing, vice-secretary general of the Internet Society of China, a Beijing industry group associated with the government. American critics contend that China could find itself without any new Wi-Fi products after the June deadline. Wang Lijian, head of the IT research center at China Electronics Standardization Institute, the group authorized by the Ministry of Information Industry to develop industrial standards, says there's plenty of time for Chinese companies to come up with new products that comply with the standard. "June 1 is the hard-and-fast deadline," he says.
There's little doubt that as tens of thousands of Chinese go online for the first time every day, the country is changing. It's becoming a more attractive place for foreign companies to invest -- and it's starting to show signs of indigenous innovation. "In the old days, China was not on the radar screen for leading-edge technology," says Robert Mao, president and chief executive for Nortel's Greater China operations. Now, "China is part of the leading edge."
Kingsoft's Wang is certain that's the case. He's already eyeing the next generation of technologies on deck in China, including video phones and mobile-phone games that blend movies, voice, and data. He has the technology, and he has the audience. It's little wonder he's dreaming big.
|
Will There Be Another Bubble?
From BusinessWeek (Asia Edition Cover Story):
China.Net
China will soon be No. 1 in Web users. That will unleash a world of opportunity
BusinessWeek
By Bruce Einhorn in Zhuhai
March 15, 2004
For years, China's Kingsoft Corp. struggled to make money selling consumer software. Although its products were popular, the company couldn't get people to pay for them -- because of rampant piracy. Then last year, the company, based in the southern city of Zhuhai, shifted its focus to the Internet.
In September, Kingsoft launched Sword Online, a rollicking game that lets players create their own characters, strike cyberalliances, and fight virtual attackers. The new business is taking off: In just six months, more than 1.7 million people have signed up, paying either $4.20 a month or $1.20 for 25 hours. Kingsoft expects the game's success to help it double revenues this year, to about $20 million, expand into other Asian markets, and become a world-class innovator in online gaming. "We want to be the pioneers," says Oliver Wang, Kingsoft's chief technology officer. "Let other people copy us."
Such dreams may seem outsize, but Chinese dot-commers have good reason to think big. China's Internet is booming. More than 22 million newbies piled on to the Web last year, bringing the total number of Chinese online to 80 million. That makes China second only to the U.S. in Internet subscribers -- and the Middle Kingdom won't remain No. 2 for long. By 2006, it is expected to overtake the U.S., with 153 million Chinese online, estimates investment bank Piper Jaffray & Co. The surge is being driven by several factors, including a strong economy that's letting people buy PCs and the opportunity the Net provides to skirt China's tight government censorship. "The Internet is growing like crazy here," says Craig Watts, managing director of Norson Telecom Consulting in Beijing.
The expanding audience has set off a building spurt in recent months reminiscent of Silicon Valley in the late 1990s. Local businesses such as Kingsoft are moving onto the Net, staking a claim to the rich opportunities ahead. Foreign Web companies, including Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO ) and eBay Inc. (EBAY ), are making acquisitions to expand their operations in the country. And entrepreneurs from around the world are opening shop on China's Net. They range from Peggy Yu, a 38-year-old MBA from New York University who runs what she hopes will be the Amazon.com Inc. of China, to Li Ka-shing, the Hong Kong billionaire whose Internet portal, Tom Online Inc., expects to raise as much as $200 million in an initial public offering scheduled for this month.
Investors are just as gung ho about the market. Sina Corp., the largest Net portal in China, has seen its shares surge eightfold over the past year, to $45. After the strong IPO of travel site Ctrip.com in December, numerous companies, like Tom Online, are lining up to sell stock to a hungry public. One of the hottest prospects? Shanda Networking Development Co., a Shanghai online gambling outfit that is expected to raise as much as $200 million in an IPO scheduled for later this year. Even venture capitalists are getting bolder. In February, business-to-business auction site Alibaba.com landed $82 million from Fidelity Investments, Softbank, and other venture players -- the largest VC investment in a Chinese dot-com ever.
No question, China's Internet companies have lots of growing up to do. Add up the market caps of all the publicly traded players, and the total comes to less than $10 billion. That's one-quarter of an eBay, one-third of a Yahoo. In most markets, the Chinese dot-coms are well behind rivals in the U. S., Japan, and Korea. And just like in the U. S., the boom will probably lead to excess, with some poorly conceived businesses imploding.
CALLING THE TUNE. Still, look at what's happening from Zhuhai to Shanghai to Beijing, and you realize that the implications could be profound. So far, the Internet has been dominated by a single country -- the U.S. Now, China has the potential to become the second major power of the Digital Age. By 2006, it is expected to have more people on the Net, more broadband subscribers, and more mobile-phone customers than any nation on earth. "To have 300 million people in China use the Internet is a tiny issue," says Jack Ma, Alibaba's founder and CEO.
.....
While sheer size is the obvious reason for China's growing Net influence, the policies of the Chinese government are just as important. Under President Hu Jintao, the Beijing government is carefully nurturing local companies to help them compete in the global marketplace. Not content with low-end manufacturing, Beijing is determined to turn China into a high-tech force that can rival the U.S., Japan, and others in innovation. Already, the government has used the billions it spends on networking gear to help China's Huawei Technologies Co. and ZTE Corp. become world-class rivals to Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO ) and Nortel. Huawei's exports doubled last year, to more than $1 billion, out of $3.8 billion in total sales.
That may be a sign of what's to come. Beijing is trying to set the standards for several key Web technologies that may let the country's manufacturers become big players around the world. Take Wi-Fi, the wildly popular wireless technology. In December, Beijing mandated that a new Chinese encryption standard for Wi-Fi be used in all gear sold in the country after June 1. The move is necessary, officials say, to make Wi-Fi more secure. To comply with the rule, foreign companies have to share their product designs with one of the two dozen Chinese companies Beijing has designated as licensees of the standard. These companies integrate the standard into the designs and then help produce the equipment.
Howls of protest have come from American high-tech companies. Dennis Eaton, chairman of the Wi-Fi Alliance, says many of the trade group's members, which include Intel, Cisco, and Broadcom, are worried that they could lose their tech edge by disclosing chip designs and other intellectual property to potential Chinese rivals. He says some may even stop shipping Wi-Fi products to China this June. U.S. industry representatives in Washington and Beijing vow to fight the policy, which they say violates World Trade Organization rules (see the letter Bush Administration officials wrote to Beijing protesting Wi-Fi encryption standards). "It's a very ominous move for the Chinese government to take," says Anne Stevenson-Yang, managing director in Beijing of the U.S. Information Technology Office, a lobbying group for U.S. high-tech companies.
Even if the U.S. companies ultimately win in a WTO court, a legal battle still may be a losing proposition. A company such as Intel or Broadcom would have to forgo sales to China for years to prove its point. That's why Beijing's policies will probably help several Chinese tech companies follow in the footsteps of Huawei, becoming powerful enough to compete globally. Among those with the most potential are networking-gear maker Harbour Networks Co. and chipmaker Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp.
HOT MESSAGES. Focusing on the trade dispute, however, risks missing an important development in China's tech industry. Just as Beijing is trying to tip the scales for domestic manufacturers, local Net companies are coming up with promising innovations on their own. In part, that's because of the special characteristics of the Chinese market. Like the U.S., portals were the first Net companies to emerge in China. But the country's top three -- Sina (SINA ), Sohu (SOHU ), and NetEase (NTES ) -- soon found that, unlike their U.S. brethren, they couldn't rely on ad sales, since online advertising was scarce.
Instead, the companies in 2002 struck gold with paid messaging services. These are tailor-made for China, which has 286 million mobile-phone users, nearly double the number in the U.S. Through revenue-sharing deals with China's two state-owned cellular operators, the portals charge to send news updates, games, and online dating information to mobile phones...
Upstarts are experimenting with a wide range of paid content. One runaway success has been virtual games, played either online or on mobile phones. In many cases, thousands of people compete against one another at the same time, taking on game identities and amassing special powers over weeks or months. China's online game market is expected to grow fivefold by 2007, to $809 million, says IDC. Late last year, Mtone Wireless Corp. scored a hit with a mobile-phone game based on Cell Phone, a blockbuster Chinese movie about miscommunication and infidelity. In just three months, 500,000 people have signed up for the game. "The mobile Internet has really saved China's Internet industry," says Victor Wang, Mtone's CEO.
Certainly, China is playing catch-up in many Net markets. E-commerce, for example, has been slow to develop in China because so few people have credit cards and the postal service isn't reliable. But NYU MBA Yu is starting to make progress with Dangdang.com, a distinctly Chinese version of Amazon...
FACTORY FLOOR. So have business-to-business Net companies. At Alibaba, CEO Ma had to win over manufacturers worried about fraud when doing business with strangers over the Net. To help customers get up the Internet learning curve, Alibaba sends representatives to the factory floors of each new manufacturer to explain how the site works. Ma says more than 1 million companies have signed up to be listed on Alibaba's import-export site, each paying $5,000 a year. What attracted the record-breaking VC investment is Alibaba's potential: Companies from around the world can request bids from Chinese manufacturers for thousands of products from cookware to washing machines. Purchasers don't need a representative in China to buy directly from the manufacturers that often have the lowest costs in the world.
The fast-growing domestic market is giving Chinese equipment makers an edge. While the China market is open to foreigners and North American companies such as Lucent Technologies Inc. (LU ) and Nortel are winning contracts, local players such as Huawei and ZTE often enjoy better connections to government officials as well as lower manufacturing and R&D costs. And those companies are starting to expand beyond China. Huawei is better known, but rival ZTE is looking abroad too. Ling Dongsheng, general manager for Internet protocol equipment at ZTE, says the company wants to sell its networking gear in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America.
As Huawei and ZTE expand overseas, top U.S. high-tech companies are crying foul. They fear Beijing is becoming involved in setting technology standards specifically to give homegrown companies an edge in the global market...
SHARE A SECRET? Most worrisome is the prospect of having to share technology secrets with Chinese companies that could become competitors. That would be reminiscent of a national policy that was common during the 1990s that used to require multinationals interested in partnering with local companies to transfer technology to them, instead of simply licensing it to them. In early March, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and other Bush Administration officials sent a letter to China protesting the Wi-Fi policy.
Chinese officials say they don't understand what all the fuss is about. They argue that the new standard will make people feel more confident of the safety of Wi-Fi, which has been notoriously insecure. That will encourage people to adopt the technology and "will have a positive impact on wireless development in China," says Huang Chengqing, vice-secretary general of the Internet Society of China, a Beijing industry group associated with the government. American critics contend that China could find itself without any new Wi-Fi products after the June deadline. Wang Lijian, head of the IT research center at China Electronics Standardization Institute, the group authorized by the Ministry of Information Industry to develop industrial standards, says there's plenty of time for Chinese companies to come up with new products that comply with the standard. "June 1 is the hard-and-fast deadline," he says.
There's little doubt that as tens of thousands of Chinese go online for the first time every day, the country is changing. It's becoming a more attractive place for foreign companies to invest -- and it's starting to show signs of indigenous innovation. "In the old days, China was not on the radar screen for leading-edge technology," says Robert Mao, president and chief executive for Nortel's Greater China operations. Now, "China is part of the leading edge."
Kingsoft's Wang is certain that's the case. He's already eyeing the next generation of technologies on deck in China, including video phones and mobile-phone games that blend movies, voice, and data. He has the technology, and he has the audience. It's little wonder he's dreaming big.
INDIA'S VENTURE CAPITAL MARKET
Clipped from the Red Herring:
Seeding India's venture community
The growth of fundamental innovation in India is paving the way for venture capital.
RED HERRING
March 1, 2004
In the late 1990s, venture capitalists got intoxicated by the idea of investing in India. Dazzled by the country’s vast engineering reserves and the flair of Indian entrepreneurs in the U.S, firms like Draper International, Walden International, and Chase H&Q Asia Pacific set up shop in the subcontinent. Five years later, they have little to show for their troubles.
Now funds seem to be flowing into Indian startups again. The third quarter of 2003 saw a sharp uptick, when $300 million went into small companies, as opposed to the $100 million for the first half of 2003, according to CDC Group, a venture capital firm that tracks Indian investments.
A number of high-profile Silicon Valley stalwarts are also turning heads by focusing on the region. All-star VC Vinod Khosla of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Beyers will reportedly turn his attention more towards Indian entrepreneurs. Meanwhile, the “father of the Pentium chip,” Vinod Dham, who oversaw development of the processor at Intel, has been quietly funding Indian companies through NewPath Ventures, a $56 million India fund that includes the WorldBank as an investor.
So what’s different this time?
On Thursday night, the recently formed U.S.-India Venture Capital Association held a reception at the Crown Plaza Cabana in Palo Alto. (The manager of the hotel, who threw in some tea, is of Indian origin, as if to underscore the tightness of the “Indian mafia,” what the network is colloquially referred to.)
Three prominent venture capitalists, NEA’s Dick Kremlich, Mayfield’s Yogen Dalal, and Sigma’s Peter Solvik, reflected on their recent visit to India and the countries potential as serious venture capital market.
Yogen Dalal, a managing director at Mayfield, says that the emergence of vibrant VC markets is a long-term process, but the phenomenon could begin within the next 24 months. Still, he wonders if more capital is being targeted at India’s early stages than there are actual opportunities.
“A lot of the VCs in India are a little bit frustrated right now,” says Mr. Dalal. “Many of them are sitting on the sidelines, twiddling their thumbs.” However, he sees the reverse migration of experienced 30-somethings who have served on Silicon Valley’s front lines as a great boon for India’s economic sector.
Dick Kramlich, general partner and co-founder of New Enterprise Associates, is much more bullish. Asked when a blockbuster product company, rather than high-profile service plays, would come out of India, he responds, “a CheckPoint Software is probably already out there, we just don’t know what its name is.”
.....
Another critical ingredient – and one that has only become available in the last 18 months – is the presence of seasoned senior managers. U.S. technology companies are increasingly encouraging their top managers of Indian origin to head up their companies’ efforts in India. “You have the raw material, or technical talent, interacting with senior management,” says Mr. Anandaram. Rather than be a passive observer to the process, Jumpstartup uses its deep network to persuade the right managers to jump ship.
Migrating slightly from its deep software focus, Mr. Anandaram believes the opportunity in India lies in the development of embedded systems for semiconductors and VLSI design. Jumpstartup invested in Hellosoft, a Hyderabad company that makes embedded systems for a variety of wireless markets, and is currently looking to add 75 more engineers to its team of 125. Aarohi Communications, which is rolling out a family of chips for the storage market, closed a $13.5 million round in December. Jumpstartup persuaded an industry veteran to quit his cushy post at Intel and forge out in a new direction as head of Aarohi’s hardware engineering.
Bangalore, not the Bay, is now the region with the world’s most programmers, notes Sumir Chadha, a senior managing director at WestBridge Capital Partners. That bodes well for VC firms like WestBridge, which are practicing a unique style of cross-border investing by funding companies that have both a U.S. and India presence.
WestBridge Capital, meanwhile, is pursuing a more button-down strategy. The less risky yet quite lucrative services deals are the firm’s sweet spot. WestBridge funded call centers when that market was emerging. Now it is looking for “next generation” services deals by betting on which U.S. industries will be outsourced next. Mr. Chadha points to WestBridge portfolio company ICICI OneSource, which provides financial services transaction processing to a number of Fortune 500 companies as an example. A joint venture with the largest financial group in India, the company has over 70 million in revenues, he says. Meanwhile, Indecomm Global Services focuses on health care claims administration.
Mr. Anandaram points out another compelling fact: 883 U.S. patents were filed out of India in 2001, a leap from the 183 filed in 1997. Further data is not available, but if that growth were to continue, there would be 1,700 filings in 2003. Meanwhile in India, 15,000 patents were filed in 2003, as compared to 4,000 in 1995. The seven companies in Jumpstartup’s portfolio have 35 patents between them alone.
Mr. Chadha says that services deals generally return about 3 to 5 times the money put in. That is not the 10 times multiple that VCs supposedly look for, but he feels that the safer bet is well worth it. In the meantime, Mr. Chadha says that the limited partners funds, are seeking to invest in more cross-border funds as India’s economic ascent continues and investors wonder how they can take advantage of it.
.....
Pioneers like Jumpstartup and WestBridge may find themselves somewhat victims of their own success, as other firm’s popup and compete for the best deals. Ultimately though, increased VC attention will be a great help to launch India’s entrepreneurial sector and not just because of the extra capital available. The startup building expertise of venture capitalists, combined with the recruiting and wrangling of funds like Jumpstartup, will help patch up the missing piece.
|
Clipped from the Red Herring:
Seeding India's venture community
The growth of fundamental innovation in India is paving the way for venture capital.
RED HERRING
March 1, 2004
In the late 1990s, venture capitalists got intoxicated by the idea of investing in India. Dazzled by the country’s vast engineering reserves and the flair of Indian entrepreneurs in the U.S, firms like Draper International, Walden International, and Chase H&Q Asia Pacific set up shop in the subcontinent. Five years later, they have little to show for their troubles.
Now funds seem to be flowing into Indian startups again. The third quarter of 2003 saw a sharp uptick, when $300 million went into small companies, as opposed to the $100 million for the first half of 2003, according to CDC Group, a venture capital firm that tracks Indian investments.
A number of high-profile Silicon Valley stalwarts are also turning heads by focusing on the region. All-star VC Vinod Khosla of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Beyers will reportedly turn his attention more towards Indian entrepreneurs. Meanwhile, the “father of the Pentium chip,” Vinod Dham, who oversaw development of the processor at Intel, has been quietly funding Indian companies through NewPath Ventures, a $56 million India fund that includes the WorldBank as an investor.
So what’s different this time?
On Thursday night, the recently formed U.S.-India Venture Capital Association held a reception at the Crown Plaza Cabana in Palo Alto. (The manager of the hotel, who threw in some tea, is of Indian origin, as if to underscore the tightness of the “Indian mafia,” what the network is colloquially referred to.)
Three prominent venture capitalists, NEA’s Dick Kremlich, Mayfield’s Yogen Dalal, and Sigma’s Peter Solvik, reflected on their recent visit to India and the countries potential as serious venture capital market.
Yogen Dalal, a managing director at Mayfield, says that the emergence of vibrant VC markets is a long-term process, but the phenomenon could begin within the next 24 months. Still, he wonders if more capital is being targeted at India’s early stages than there are actual opportunities.
“A lot of the VCs in India are a little bit frustrated right now,” says Mr. Dalal. “Many of them are sitting on the sidelines, twiddling their thumbs.” However, he sees the reverse migration of experienced 30-somethings who have served on Silicon Valley’s front lines as a great boon for India’s economic sector.
Dick Kramlich, general partner and co-founder of New Enterprise Associates, is much more bullish. Asked when a blockbuster product company, rather than high-profile service plays, would come out of India, he responds, “a CheckPoint Software is probably already out there, we just don’t know what its name is.”
.....
Another critical ingredient – and one that has only become available in the last 18 months – is the presence of seasoned senior managers. U.S. technology companies are increasingly encouraging their top managers of Indian origin to head up their companies’ efforts in India. “You have the raw material, or technical talent, interacting with senior management,” says Mr. Anandaram. Rather than be a passive observer to the process, Jumpstartup uses its deep network to persuade the right managers to jump ship.
Migrating slightly from its deep software focus, Mr. Anandaram believes the opportunity in India lies in the development of embedded systems for semiconductors and VLSI design. Jumpstartup invested in Hellosoft, a Hyderabad company that makes embedded systems for a variety of wireless markets, and is currently looking to add 75 more engineers to its team of 125. Aarohi Communications, which is rolling out a family of chips for the storage market, closed a $13.5 million round in December. Jumpstartup persuaded an industry veteran to quit his cushy post at Intel and forge out in a new direction as head of Aarohi’s hardware engineering.
Bangalore, not the Bay, is now the region with the world’s most programmers, notes Sumir Chadha, a senior managing director at WestBridge Capital Partners. That bodes well for VC firms like WestBridge, which are practicing a unique style of cross-border investing by funding companies that have both a U.S. and India presence.
WestBridge Capital, meanwhile, is pursuing a more button-down strategy. The less risky yet quite lucrative services deals are the firm’s sweet spot. WestBridge funded call centers when that market was emerging. Now it is looking for “next generation” services deals by betting on which U.S. industries will be outsourced next. Mr. Chadha points to WestBridge portfolio company ICICI OneSource, which provides financial services transaction processing to a number of Fortune 500 companies as an example. A joint venture with the largest financial group in India, the company has over 70 million in revenues, he says. Meanwhile, Indecomm Global Services focuses on health care claims administration.
Mr. Anandaram points out another compelling fact: 883 U.S. patents were filed out of India in 2001, a leap from the 183 filed in 1997. Further data is not available, but if that growth were to continue, there would be 1,700 filings in 2003. Meanwhile in India, 15,000 patents were filed in 2003, as compared to 4,000 in 1995. The seven companies in Jumpstartup’s portfolio have 35 patents between them alone.
Mr. Chadha says that services deals generally return about 3 to 5 times the money put in. That is not the 10 times multiple that VCs supposedly look for, but he feels that the safer bet is well worth it. In the meantime, Mr. Chadha says that the limited partners funds, are seeking to invest in more cross-border funds as India’s economic ascent continues and investors wonder how they can take advantage of it.
.....
Pioneers like Jumpstartup and WestBridge may find themselves somewhat victims of their own success, as other firm’s popup and compete for the best deals. Ultimately though, increased VC attention will be a great help to launch India’s entrepreneurial sector and not just because of the extra capital available. The startup building expertise of venture capitalists, combined with the recruiting and wrangling of funds like Jumpstartup, will help patch up the missing piece.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
WHAT AN IDIOT... PRESIDENT ROH
How Corrupt Can a Political System Be?
This one cracks me up. The president of South Korea promised a few months back that "he would step down if his illegal campaign funds during the 2002 presidential election campaign exceeded 10 percent of those of the GNP (opposition party)." How messed up is that if the president of a top 10 global economy basically admits to illegal campaign funding and replies by saying, "Well, we weren't as bad as the other party."
And he goes on, which I assume out of confidence, to promise to the nation that his party did not have illegal funds exceeding 10% of the other party. If I was a Korean citizen, is this suppose to make me feel better? More confident that one party is at least "90% less corrupt" than the other party? He's a joke. I doesn't get it and doesn't belong in such an office. Obviously, there needs to be huge changes made in the political system in Korea, and Roh is not the person to lead such a battle. He's almost, if not already, a lame-duck president.
Now prosecutors in the campaign funding investigation found his illegal funds to exceed 10% of the GNP's. He should just keep his promise and step down. Let my relatives live in a nation moving towards progress and reform, and not be led by someone who constantly reveals himself to be incapable and idiotic. Stop me from cringing every few weeks. Don't be like Mikey from Swingers, just give up... put the phone down. Please.
Words come back to haunt Roh
The Korea Herald
By Lee Joo-hee
March 10, 2004
President Roh Moo-hyun's words are coming back to haunt him.
While it is not unusual for politicians to break promises - the public pretty much expects it - one of the president's bolder pledges is firmly lodged in the minds of opposition parties as well as voters.
Roh on Dec. 14 confidently told the country he would step down if his illegal campaign funds during the 2002 presidential election campaign exceeded 10 percent of those of the GNP.
The prosecution this week revealed its numbers. Roh's campaign took in about 11.4 billion won compared to the Grand National Party's 82.3, prosecutors revealed.
It did not take the opposition long to dredge up Roh's three-month-old promise and do the math. Now, Roh's Cheong Wa Dae aides are doing some fancy stepping, talking about the president taking responsibility but not being specific about what he will do. (full article)
|
How Corrupt Can a Political System Be?
This one cracks me up. The president of South Korea promised a few months back that "he would step down if his illegal campaign funds during the 2002 presidential election campaign exceeded 10 percent of those of the GNP (opposition party)." How messed up is that if the president of a top 10 global economy basically admits to illegal campaign funding and replies by saying, "Well, we weren't as bad as the other party."
And he goes on, which I assume out of confidence, to promise to the nation that his party did not have illegal funds exceeding 10% of the other party. If I was a Korean citizen, is this suppose to make me feel better? More confident that one party is at least "90% less corrupt" than the other party? He's a joke. I doesn't get it and doesn't belong in such an office. Obviously, there needs to be huge changes made in the political system in Korea, and Roh is not the person to lead such a battle. He's almost, if not already, a lame-duck president.
Now prosecutors in the campaign funding investigation found his illegal funds to exceed 10% of the GNP's. He should just keep his promise and step down. Let my relatives live in a nation moving towards progress and reform, and not be led by someone who constantly reveals himself to be incapable and idiotic. Stop me from cringing every few weeks. Don't be like Mikey from Swingers, just give up... put the phone down. Please.
Words come back to haunt Roh
The Korea Herald
By Lee Joo-hee
March 10, 2004
President Roh Moo-hyun's words are coming back to haunt him.
While it is not unusual for politicians to break promises - the public pretty much expects it - one of the president's bolder pledges is firmly lodged in the minds of opposition parties as well as voters.
Roh on Dec. 14 confidently told the country he would step down if his illegal campaign funds during the 2002 presidential election campaign exceeded 10 percent of those of the GNP.
The prosecution this week revealed its numbers. Roh's campaign took in about 11.4 billion won compared to the Grand National Party's 82.3, prosecutors revealed.
It did not take the opposition long to dredge up Roh's three-month-old promise and do the math. Now, Roh's Cheong Wa Dae aides are doing some fancy stepping, talking about the president taking responsibility but not being specific about what he will do. (full article)
WILLIAM DONALDSON INTERVIEW
On His Experiences, Entrepreneurship, and Life
I came across this interview while doing some research for work. Great stories by Donaldson, who was one of the founders of DLJ. Impressive man and entrepreneur, and what a storied career. Excerpts of the interview for HBS:
The Honorable William "Bill" Donaldson (Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette), HBS 1958, was one of the founders of DLJ. He saw that a new breed of institutional fund manager was emerging who would need higher quality research on firms' projected stock price performance than was being offered on Wall Street at the time. DLJ was set up to meet that need. Bill also made sure the firm had a seat on the New York Stock Exchange, and he later helped overturn regulations so DLJ could be the first investment bank to go public on the NYSE. Bill went on to co-found Yale's School of Management, to head the NYSE, and, among other leadership roles in business, philanthropy and academia, he was selected in 2001 to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission under President George W. Bush. Bill described his experiences in a video interview in his office in Manhattan, March 2002. Interviewer: Amy Blitz, HBS Director of Media Development for Entrepreneurial Management.
I was brought up in Buffalo, New York. I was born in 1931, right at the height of the Depression. I grew up under relatively modest circumstances...
We had two thoughts that led us to form DLJ. The first was that we were seeing the emergence of the institutional investor. During the war, most everybody put their money in bonds. Coming out of the war, the banks were the last to go into stocks. Mutuals funds were just getting started, and with them emerged a new breed of institutional investor... When we first started our business, I think the statistic was something like 95 percent of the stock in this country was owned by individual investors...
Our second thought was about the need to deliver analyses that would be a lot closer to what a McKinsey might do than just a Standard & Poor's recommendation of the week. The reports would give an understanding of a business, not just an analysis of the numbers, to a prospective buyer of a stock. Of course the numbers are important, but we were interested in doing what we called scuttlebutt research, like talking with the marketing vice president. We were out calling on competitors and suppliers and really understanding the economics of the marketplace so that we could make a judgement on where the company fit in, where it fit in with its competitors, why it was doing things with way it was doing them, and why it was being criticized by its competitors.
...
Our success had a lot to do with the type of people that we hired. We only got the smartest men and women we possibly could. I think we were way ahead of our time in that we had a lot of women working at DLJ in the early days... The other structural thing about DLJ was that it was a very level organization in terms of partnership. We were a corporation but we acted like a parthership. We had all sorts of incentives to motivate people to be part of a team. Only a part of the incentives were monetary. I think we were all highly motivated to take on the world and do things differently.
...
I think I've always had entrepreneurial instincts. They go back to the time of the lemonade stand... I've always been interested in entrepreneurial undertakings. I don't think I was moved by the idea that we were going to start an investment banking firm. I was moved by the idea that I wanted to help start something new. I was heavily influenced by the concept of team effort.
We didn't have any money to begin with. We had to go out and raise the money. We got into a car and drove around to talk with friends and classmates and people we'd grown up with and people who had some confidence in us. We told them we were thinking of starting this business and we laid out the business plan. A number of people invested in us. Some didn't because they were advised by people on Wall Street that we weren't going to be successful and they would be crazy to invest in a new Wall Street firm when there were already big firms down there. I think the people who invested were people who knew us pretty well. Our story was that we were going to build something for the long haul. We were not building a company just to sell it. We wanted to build a great organization and we wanted to apply a lot of our theories while building the organization. I think our mission was appealing to certain people.
...
We started the Alliance Management Company and we essentially built it around a major thrust into the pension fund market. We very quickly became the largest non-bank manager of pension funds in the 1960s and early 1970s. Alliance was a diversifcation effort and we ran it as a separate division. Today, Alliance is big - one of the top four or five mutual fund companies.
There were a couple people at DLJ who said the agency business - running other people's money and selling research to other people - is never going to be as profitable a business as investing our own money. They also pointed out that agency work is hard work. They said let's take the capital we've created and invest in ourselves. Let's get into the leverage buy-out business. Let's get into businesses where we can make huge capital gains and we can do it with a lot fewer people. We had a battle over this idea. Those of us who saw the firm as being more than just a money machine prevailed. We said, "No. We want to build a major investment banking firm. We've only just started. We don't want to just turn ourselves inward and invest our own money." We made a tough decision.
I think we actually would have started to attract different sorts of people had we not launched Alliance. I think we would have killed the joy and the esprit de corps of building something, of building an investment banking firm that was starting to compete with the biggest and the best. I think those of us who helped decide to stay on track didn't want to shrink ourselves down to be a hedge fund or an LBO fund or something. At that time, we wanted to build a business, expand it, and diversify it. And, although it's a cliche to say, I think money is chips in the game. If you don't have a successful business, if you're not making money, you don't deserve to exist. But I don't think money was the principal objective. I think there was the challenge of what we were doing, the challenge of building something, and the challenge of not only our product line and diversification, but also of bringing together people in an organization that had esprit de corps.
...
I've done a lot of thinking about entrepreneurship. When I was Dean at Yale, I taught a course on the subject. I fee. that entrepreneurship is too narrowly defined and that there are a set of entrepreneurial principles that apply not just to starting a business but also to managing large organizations. We ran a course in which I invited all sorts of people who, in my definition, were entrepreneurs. We were seeking common denominators between entrepreneurs who ran large organizations and those who started businesses. I think the first common denominator is that entrepreneurs have a lot of energy. That energy can come in very different packages. The most energetic man I know is Henry Kissinger. He does not look like he has the package, but he's a dynamo inside. I think you can do something about energy by taking care of yourself physically, and I have yet to meet a successful enterpreneur who is lazy or doesn't have a lot of energy.
The second common denominator I have seen among the entrepreneurs I've met is that they see the world in a slightly different way. In my example, we at DLJ saw the investment world in a slightly different way. We saw the opportunity that was there for anybody to see. Fred Smith of Federal Express is a perfect example. He saw all the planes in the airline industry sitting on the ground at night. By looking at the situation from a slightly different angle, Fred saw the ability to move packages at night. Actually, I've seen how great artists see things slightly differently. What is a great work of art, but the work of somebody who sees something slightly differently and creates that vision?
Most people think of entrepreneurs as people who shoot for the moon and, if they don't succeed, they move on to the next thing. I think entrepreneurs have to be very careful about having a fall-back position. They have to use their "peripheral vision" or knowledge and think one or two steps ahead so that they know what they're going to do when the first setback comes. They have to finance themselves well enough so that they're not left out on a limb. At the same time, entrepreneurs are analytical up to a point and then they say, "To hell with it. I'm going to go ahead with the project." In other words, they're out there finding out as much as they can and focusing on their business plan, but at some point they just don't want to hear another person say they can't do it. They go do it. They finally leap and do it. I think it's very important to be able to do that because there are always going to be reasons people will use to talk to you out of going ahead. You just have to have courage. It's not that you just jump in blindly, because you will have a fall-back position mixed in.
...
Finally, to be a successful entrepreneur, I think you have to have a real urge in the pit of your stomach. I think you have to have a thick enough skin to handle criticism and adversity, to know that it isn't straight up. I think you have to be willing to make the inevitable compromises in family and lifestyle. If you're going to start something and build it, it doesn't leave a lot of time to do other things. There's a certain amount of sacrifice and you have to learn to live with that from the family point of view. The time commitment might lessen as you get older, but there are sacrifices.
They say, "Man's reach must exceed his grasp or what's a heaven for?" I really believe in that statement.
|
On His Experiences, Entrepreneurship, and Life
I came across this interview while doing some research for work. Great stories by Donaldson, who was one of the founders of DLJ. Impressive man and entrepreneur, and what a storied career. Excerpts of the interview for HBS:
The Honorable William "Bill" Donaldson (Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette), HBS 1958, was one of the founders of DLJ. He saw that a new breed of institutional fund manager was emerging who would need higher quality research on firms' projected stock price performance than was being offered on Wall Street at the time. DLJ was set up to meet that need. Bill also made sure the firm had a seat on the New York Stock Exchange, and he later helped overturn regulations so DLJ could be the first investment bank to go public on the NYSE. Bill went on to co-found Yale's School of Management, to head the NYSE, and, among other leadership roles in business, philanthropy and academia, he was selected in 2001 to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission under President George W. Bush. Bill described his experiences in a video interview in his office in Manhattan, March 2002. Interviewer: Amy Blitz, HBS Director of Media Development for Entrepreneurial Management.
I was brought up in Buffalo, New York. I was born in 1931, right at the height of the Depression. I grew up under relatively modest circumstances...
We had two thoughts that led us to form DLJ. The first was that we were seeing the emergence of the institutional investor. During the war, most everybody put their money in bonds. Coming out of the war, the banks were the last to go into stocks. Mutuals funds were just getting started, and with them emerged a new breed of institutional investor... When we first started our business, I think the statistic was something like 95 percent of the stock in this country was owned by individual investors...
Our second thought was about the need to deliver analyses that would be a lot closer to what a McKinsey might do than just a Standard & Poor's recommendation of the week. The reports would give an understanding of a business, not just an analysis of the numbers, to a prospective buyer of a stock. Of course the numbers are important, but we were interested in doing what we called scuttlebutt research, like talking with the marketing vice president. We were out calling on competitors and suppliers and really understanding the economics of the marketplace so that we could make a judgement on where the company fit in, where it fit in with its competitors, why it was doing things with way it was doing them, and why it was being criticized by its competitors.
...
Our success had a lot to do with the type of people that we hired. We only got the smartest men and women we possibly could. I think we were way ahead of our time in that we had a lot of women working at DLJ in the early days... The other structural thing about DLJ was that it was a very level organization in terms of partnership. We were a corporation but we acted like a parthership. We had all sorts of incentives to motivate people to be part of a team. Only a part of the incentives were monetary. I think we were all highly motivated to take on the world and do things differently.
...
I think I've always had entrepreneurial instincts. They go back to the time of the lemonade stand... I've always been interested in entrepreneurial undertakings. I don't think I was moved by the idea that we were going to start an investment banking firm. I was moved by the idea that I wanted to help start something new. I was heavily influenced by the concept of team effort.
We didn't have any money to begin with. We had to go out and raise the money. We got into a car and drove around to talk with friends and classmates and people we'd grown up with and people who had some confidence in us. We told them we were thinking of starting this business and we laid out the business plan. A number of people invested in us. Some didn't because they were advised by people on Wall Street that we weren't going to be successful and they would be crazy to invest in a new Wall Street firm when there were already big firms down there. I think the people who invested were people who knew us pretty well. Our story was that we were going to build something for the long haul. We were not building a company just to sell it. We wanted to build a great organization and we wanted to apply a lot of our theories while building the organization. I think our mission was appealing to certain people.
...
We started the Alliance Management Company and we essentially built it around a major thrust into the pension fund market. We very quickly became the largest non-bank manager of pension funds in the 1960s and early 1970s. Alliance was a diversifcation effort and we ran it as a separate division. Today, Alliance is big - one of the top four or five mutual fund companies.
There were a couple people at DLJ who said the agency business - running other people's money and selling research to other people - is never going to be as profitable a business as investing our own money. They also pointed out that agency work is hard work. They said let's take the capital we've created and invest in ourselves. Let's get into the leverage buy-out business. Let's get into businesses where we can make huge capital gains and we can do it with a lot fewer people. We had a battle over this idea. Those of us who saw the firm as being more than just a money machine prevailed. We said, "No. We want to build a major investment banking firm. We've only just started. We don't want to just turn ourselves inward and invest our own money." We made a tough decision.
I think we actually would have started to attract different sorts of people had we not launched Alliance. I think we would have killed the joy and the esprit de corps of building something, of building an investment banking firm that was starting to compete with the biggest and the best. I think those of us who helped decide to stay on track didn't want to shrink ourselves down to be a hedge fund or an LBO fund or something. At that time, we wanted to build a business, expand it, and diversify it. And, although it's a cliche to say, I think money is chips in the game. If you don't have a successful business, if you're not making money, you don't deserve to exist. But I don't think money was the principal objective. I think there was the challenge of what we were doing, the challenge of building something, and the challenge of not only our product line and diversification, but also of bringing together people in an organization that had esprit de corps.
...
I've done a lot of thinking about entrepreneurship. When I was Dean at Yale, I taught a course on the subject. I fee. that entrepreneurship is too narrowly defined and that there are a set of entrepreneurial principles that apply not just to starting a business but also to managing large organizations. We ran a course in which I invited all sorts of people who, in my definition, were entrepreneurs. We were seeking common denominators between entrepreneurs who ran large organizations and those who started businesses. I think the first common denominator is that entrepreneurs have a lot of energy. That energy can come in very different packages. The most energetic man I know is Henry Kissinger. He does not look like he has the package, but he's a dynamo inside. I think you can do something about energy by taking care of yourself physically, and I have yet to meet a successful enterpreneur who is lazy or doesn't have a lot of energy.
The second common denominator I have seen among the entrepreneurs I've met is that they see the world in a slightly different way. In my example, we at DLJ saw the investment world in a slightly different way. We saw the opportunity that was there for anybody to see. Fred Smith of Federal Express is a perfect example. He saw all the planes in the airline industry sitting on the ground at night. By looking at the situation from a slightly different angle, Fred saw the ability to move packages at night. Actually, I've seen how great artists see things slightly differently. What is a great work of art, but the work of somebody who sees something slightly differently and creates that vision?
Most people think of entrepreneurs as people who shoot for the moon and, if they don't succeed, they move on to the next thing. I think entrepreneurs have to be very careful about having a fall-back position. They have to use their "peripheral vision" or knowledge and think one or two steps ahead so that they know what they're going to do when the first setback comes. They have to finance themselves well enough so that they're not left out on a limb. At the same time, entrepreneurs are analytical up to a point and then they say, "To hell with it. I'm going to go ahead with the project." In other words, they're out there finding out as much as they can and focusing on their business plan, but at some point they just don't want to hear another person say they can't do it. They go do it. They finally leap and do it. I think it's very important to be able to do that because there are always going to be reasons people will use to talk to you out of going ahead. You just have to have courage. It's not that you just jump in blindly, because you will have a fall-back position mixed in.
...
Finally, to be a successful entrepreneur, I think you have to have a real urge in the pit of your stomach. I think you have to have a thick enough skin to handle criticism and adversity, to know that it isn't straight up. I think you have to be willing to make the inevitable compromises in family and lifestyle. If you're going to start something and build it, it doesn't leave a lot of time to do other things. There's a certain amount of sacrifice and you have to learn to live with that from the family point of view. The time commitment might lessen as you get older, but there are sacrifices.
They say, "Man's reach must exceed his grasp or what's a heaven for?" I really believe in that statement.
Monday, March 08, 2004
NANOTECH IS ALREADY A BILLION-DOLLAR INDUSTRY
Investment in nanotech anything but small
Last modified: March 8, 2004, 2:37 PM PST
By John G. Spooner
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
BOSTON--Nanotechnology is already a billion-dollar industry, and it's barely out of the lab.
The U.S. government plans to plow nearly $1 billion into nanotech research during fiscal 2004, and it'll add $3.7 billion more between fiscal 2005 and 2008, said Clayton Teague, director of the National Nanotechnology Coordinator Office, a government department that facilitates cooperation between academic researchers, corporations and other government offices. (full article)
|
Investment in nanotech anything but small
Last modified: March 8, 2004, 2:37 PM PST
By John G. Spooner
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
BOSTON--Nanotechnology is already a billion-dollar industry, and it's barely out of the lab.
The U.S. government plans to plow nearly $1 billion into nanotech research during fiscal 2004, and it'll add $3.7 billion more between fiscal 2005 and 2008, said Clayton Teague, director of the National Nanotechnology Coordinator Office, a government department that facilitates cooperation between academic researchers, corporations and other government offices. (full article)
ANALYSIS OF KERRY'S FOREIGN POLICY
Another Good Post by Roger Simon
Sorry about all these recent posts against Kerry to the Dems, or could-be Dems, that visit this site... random readers, people from Coro, people from grad school, good friends who are delusional Clintonites (e.g. Thomas, Debbie), non-American friends (could-be Dems), but you guys simply don't have a respectable candidate to represent our great nation during this critical juncture of history. Here's another reason by Roger Simon:
The Big Scorn
At the conclusion of his excellent analysis of John Kerry's foreign policy interview with Time Magazine, Steven Den Beste concludes of Kerry:
"Based on everything I know about him now, I cannot in good conscience consider voting for him. I would rather vote for a candidate with known policies with which I disagree than for a candidate whose true policies -- if any -- are kept hidden under a bushel basket, at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, in a dis-used lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the leopard". If I were somehow forced to choose, I'd vote for Nader before I'd vote for Kerry. At least I know what Nader stands for."
De acuerdo, Don Steven, but I would like to look for a moment at just one of your points and take it a little further. Den Beste writes that one of Kerry's central and repeated arguments against so-called "American unilateralism" is that it has brought down upon us the "scorn of the world." Leaving aside for a second the endlessly debatable question of unilateralism and assuming it to be true, I think Kerry has the scorn issue completely backwards and is using something that isn't there to justify opinions of his own that he doesn't have. (full post)
|
Another Good Post by Roger Simon
Sorry about all these recent posts against Kerry to the Dems, or could-be Dems, that visit this site... random readers, people from Coro, people from grad school, good friends who are delusional Clintonites (e.g. Thomas, Debbie), non-American friends (could-be Dems), but you guys simply don't have a respectable candidate to represent our great nation during this critical juncture of history. Here's another reason by Roger Simon:
The Big Scorn
At the conclusion of his excellent analysis of John Kerry's foreign policy interview with Time Magazine, Steven Den Beste concludes of Kerry:
"Based on everything I know about him now, I cannot in good conscience consider voting for him. I would rather vote for a candidate with known policies with which I disagree than for a candidate whose true policies -- if any -- are kept hidden under a bushel basket, at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, in a dis-used lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the leopard". If I were somehow forced to choose, I'd vote for Nader before I'd vote for Kerry. At least I know what Nader stands for."
De acuerdo, Don Steven, but I would like to look for a moment at just one of your points and take it a little further. Den Beste writes that one of Kerry's central and repeated arguments against so-called "American unilateralism" is that it has brought down upon us the "scorn of the world." Leaving aside for a second the endlessly debatable question of unilateralism and assuming it to be true, I think Kerry has the scorn issue completely backwards and is using something that isn't there to justify opinions of his own that he doesn't have. (full post)
JOHN KERRY FLUNKS THE PINNOCHIO TEST
Kerry Really has Issues... Hugh Hewitt Comments
John Kerry flunks the Pinnochio Test: "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," Kerry told a crowd of potential contributors today. CNN has been unable to locate a record of Kerry meeting with even one foreign leader since the campaign began. Oops.
What's this show? That Kerry himself understands his weakness on national security and as a result has to manufacture support for his candidacy outside of the nutty left. So he lies about "foreign leaders" urging him to run. The media travelling with Kerry should demand specifics or get an admission he made this up.
The president blasted Kerry today for Kerry's 1995 bill which proposed a $1.5 billion dollar cut in intelligence funding. The president noted that Kerry's bill failed to gain even a single co-sponsor. The president also noted that Kerry proposed the draconian cuts in intelligence spenidng two years after the first attack on the World Trade Center.
I wonder if Kerry's mythical "foreign leaders" support the crippling of U.S. intelligence capability?
|
Kerry Really has Issues... Hugh Hewitt Comments
John Kerry flunks the Pinnochio Test: "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," Kerry told a crowd of potential contributors today. CNN has been unable to locate a record of Kerry meeting with even one foreign leader since the campaign began. Oops.
What's this show? That Kerry himself understands his weakness on national security and as a result has to manufacture support for his candidacy outside of the nutty left. So he lies about "foreign leaders" urging him to run. The media travelling with Kerry should demand specifics or get an admission he made this up.
The president blasted Kerry today for Kerry's 1995 bill which proposed a $1.5 billion dollar cut in intelligence funding. The president noted that Kerry's bill failed to gain even a single co-sponsor. The president also noted that Kerry proposed the draconian cuts in intelligence spenidng two years after the first attack on the World Trade Center.
I wonder if Kerry's mythical "foreign leaders" support the crippling of U.S. intelligence capability?
Sunday, March 07, 2004
DEMS SET UP CRITICS AGAINST BUSH AD
Other Families Rush to His Defense
Timely and organized response by the Dems on Bush's 9/11 ads. Gotta tip my hat to them. Came across this article and various comments at Lucianne.com:
9/11 KIN RUSH TO BUSH'S DEFENSE
NEW YORK POST
By HEIDI SINGER
March 7, 2004
President Bush yesterday defended his use of Sept. 11 footage to get himself re-elected, and more than a dozen victims' families threw their support behind him.
The president caused a firestorm of protest from victims' families on Thursday when his campaign began running commercials using images of the destroyed World Trade Center...
Some comments:
Reply 1 - Posted by: miceal, 3/7/2004 7:44:04 AM
The "firestorm" was caused by the DNC, MSM, and a few activist demonrat buttwipes. The sad thing is we all have eight months of this crap to endure. I am sitting here just waiting for the "next" faked outrage by these vacuous dolts and their ilk.
________________________________
Reply 10 - Posted by: Tanstaafl, 3/7/2004 8:51:49 AM
Some interesting info about the''critics'' here:
RWN
A sample: '' Coleen Kelly who is a member of an anti-war group called "Peaceful Tomorrows" & spoke at an anti-war rally with Susan Sarandon.''
________________________________
Reply 12 - Posted by: mikkins, 3/7/2004 9:41:47 AM
Did some research on one Bill Doyle.
Retired stock broker who seems to be one of the medias favorite choices in quoting whenever they want a good sound bite. After a while it becomes apparent that Mr. Doyle didn't like President well before the ad came out.
Also most of the sites he is involved with directly link to...........
You guessed it.
Peaceful Tomorrows
|
Other Families Rush to His Defense
Timely and organized response by the Dems on Bush's 9/11 ads. Gotta tip my hat to them. Came across this article and various comments at Lucianne.com:
9/11 KIN RUSH TO BUSH'S DEFENSE
NEW YORK POST
By HEIDI SINGER
March 7, 2004
President Bush yesterday defended his use of Sept. 11 footage to get himself re-elected, and more than a dozen victims' families threw their support behind him.
The president caused a firestorm of protest from victims' families on Thursday when his campaign began running commercials using images of the destroyed World Trade Center...
Some comments:
Reply 1 - Posted by: miceal, 3/7/2004 7:44:04 AM
The "firestorm" was caused by the DNC, MSM, and a few activist demonrat buttwipes. The sad thing is we all have eight months of this crap to endure. I am sitting here just waiting for the "next" faked outrage by these vacuous dolts and their ilk.
________________________________
Reply 10 - Posted by: Tanstaafl, 3/7/2004 8:51:49 AM
Some interesting info about the''critics'' here:
RWN
A sample: '' Coleen Kelly who is a member of an anti-war group called "Peaceful Tomorrows" & spoke at an anti-war rally with Susan Sarandon.''
________________________________
Reply 12 - Posted by: mikkins, 3/7/2004 9:41:47 AM
Did some research on one Bill Doyle.
Retired stock broker who seems to be one of the medias favorite choices in quoting whenever they want a good sound bite. After a while it becomes apparent that Mr. Doyle didn't like President well before the ad came out.
Also most of the sites he is involved with directly link to...........
You guessed it.
Peaceful Tomorrows
Saturday, March 06, 2004
TONY BLAIR LAYS IT OUT AGAIN ON THE IRAQI WAR
Again Via Instapundit... I Agree with Glenn A Lot
Gotta love Tony Blair... so articulate, eloquent, and insightful in his speeches. If you have time, read his speech (link below). I like Roger Simon's post on Blair too.
Any counterpoints from my friends on the left? I get those emails, but none are brave enough to post to the public and open themselves to criticism? Anyway, below is the entry from Glenn Reynold's blog that I got the speech from:
VIA HARRY'S PLACE, a terrific speech by Tony Blair on the war and the various critics thereof:
But the key point is that it is the threat that is the issue.
The characterisation of the threat is where the difference lies. Here is where I feel so passionately that we are in mortal danger of mistaking the nature of the new world in which we live.
Everything about our world is changing: its economy, its technology, its culture, its way of living.
If the 20th century scripted our conventional way of thinking, the 21st century is unconventional in almost every respect.
This is true also of our security.
The threat we face is not conventional. It is a challenge of a different nature from anything the world has faced before. It is to the world's security, what globalisation is to the world's economy.
It was defined not by Iraq but by September 11th. September 11th did not create the threat Saddam posed.
But it altered crucially the balance of risk as to whether to deal with it or simply carry on, however imperfectly, trying to contain it. . . .
The point about September 11th was not its detailed planning; not its devilish execution; not even, simply, that it happened in America, on the streets of New York. All of this made it an astonishing, terrible and wicked tragedy, a barbaric murder of innocent people.
But what galvanised me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who were prepared to wage that war without limit. They killed 3000.
But if they could have killed 30,000 or 300,000 they would have rejoiced in it.
The purpose was to cause such hatred between Moslems and the West that a religious jihad became reality; and the world engulfed by it. . . .
This is not a time to err on the side of caution; not a time to weigh the risks to an infinite balance; not a time for the cynicism of the worldly wise who favour playing it long.
Their worldly wise cynicism is actually at best naivete and at worst dereliction.
This is what Blair gets, and the war critics don't.
|
Again Via Instapundit... I Agree with Glenn A Lot
Gotta love Tony Blair... so articulate, eloquent, and insightful in his speeches. If you have time, read his speech (link below). I like Roger Simon's post on Blair too.
Any counterpoints from my friends on the left? I get those emails, but none are brave enough to post to the public and open themselves to criticism? Anyway, below is the entry from Glenn Reynold's blog that I got the speech from:
VIA HARRY'S PLACE, a terrific speech by Tony Blair on the war and the various critics thereof:
But the key point is that it is the threat that is the issue.
The characterisation of the threat is where the difference lies. Here is where I feel so passionately that we are in mortal danger of mistaking the nature of the new world in which we live.
Everything about our world is changing: its economy, its technology, its culture, its way of living.
If the 20th century scripted our conventional way of thinking, the 21st century is unconventional in almost every respect.
This is true also of our security.
The threat we face is not conventional. It is a challenge of a different nature from anything the world has faced before. It is to the world's security, what globalisation is to the world's economy.
It was defined not by Iraq but by September 11th. September 11th did not create the threat Saddam posed.
But it altered crucially the balance of risk as to whether to deal with it or simply carry on, however imperfectly, trying to contain it. . . .
The point about September 11th was not its detailed planning; not its devilish execution; not even, simply, that it happened in America, on the streets of New York. All of this made it an astonishing, terrible and wicked tragedy, a barbaric murder of innocent people.
But what galvanised me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who were prepared to wage that war without limit. They killed 3000.
But if they could have killed 30,000 or 300,000 they would have rejoiced in it.
The purpose was to cause such hatred between Moslems and the West that a religious jihad became reality; and the world engulfed by it. . . .
This is not a time to err on the side of caution; not a time to weigh the risks to an infinite balance; not a time for the cynicism of the worldly wise who favour playing it long.
Their worldly wise cynicism is actually at best naivete and at worst dereliction.
This is what Blair gets, and the war critics don't.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
KOREAN VENTURE CAPITAL FIRMS SUCK
Assinine is Better Than Clueless
A few days ago I had a meeting with one of the major domestic venture capital firms in Korea. For the software company I'm helping out, we started the process of seeking a second round of venture capital financing. A local firm expressed interest so they visited on Tuesday to hear our presentation and see our software demostration. The end result was the same frustration on my end and cluelessness on their end I encountered when we were raising capital for my first two startups.
I waited a couple days to write this entry because I wanted to put down my thoughts in a calm state of mind. I wrote about the immature venture capital industry in Asia before, especially Korea, but this is a more blunt assessment. Vast majority of the professionals are simply morons. They are clueless. Especially with many of these domestic funds, they don't hire the best people since these people don't get carry (percentage of the earnings) in the fund. They are just managers hired to find and decide on investments, but incentivized to avoid risk. Many are not even the best and the brightest from their schools or professional backgrounds, but even if they are they all function in a similar manner... being clueless.
So during my meeting, I was reminded of my prior efforts in pitching for HeyAnita Korea. We met with many of the domestic venture capital funds in Korea and didn't expect much after the first few meetings. Same reaction, same hand-holding, same cluelessness. It was frustration to a painful degree for our team. When we met with U.S. venture capital firms, we were challenged with probing and insightful questions, feedback that made our business model better, and we always felt like we came out better from our meeting whether they were interested in us or not. I was hoping for just half of this from Asian venture capital firms, but this dream never solidified.
So on Tuesday, these two professionals didn't know how to ask questions or really challenge our thinking. Their two main comments I remember were, "I don't see the market for it." and "I don't see many potential applications." Typical Korean venture capitalists. This is after we explained how potential customers we spoke with saw so many applications and we gave several examples. Encountering cluelessness is frustrating for anyone pitching for financing.
Afterwards, I spoke with my friend, Jimmy, and talked about the meeting. He started to laugh because he knew the firm and said, "Of course they're like that... they're a typical Korean firm and the most conservative fund."
I replied, "I would rather that they be extreme assholes but friggin' brilliant, so that they could tear our business model and company apart, and give us a hundred reasons why we won't succeed or what we should change to improve the company. "I don't get it" just doesn't do it for me. At least ask me one good question..."
|
Assinine is Better Than Clueless
A few days ago I had a meeting with one of the major domestic venture capital firms in Korea. For the software company I'm helping out, we started the process of seeking a second round of venture capital financing. A local firm expressed interest so they visited on Tuesday to hear our presentation and see our software demostration. The end result was the same frustration on my end and cluelessness on their end I encountered when we were raising capital for my first two startups.
I waited a couple days to write this entry because I wanted to put down my thoughts in a calm state of mind. I wrote about the immature venture capital industry in Asia before, especially Korea, but this is a more blunt assessment. Vast majority of the professionals are simply morons. They are clueless. Especially with many of these domestic funds, they don't hire the best people since these people don't get carry (percentage of the earnings) in the fund. They are just managers hired to find and decide on investments, but incentivized to avoid risk. Many are not even the best and the brightest from their schools or professional backgrounds, but even if they are they all function in a similar manner... being clueless.
So during my meeting, I was reminded of my prior efforts in pitching for HeyAnita Korea. We met with many of the domestic venture capital funds in Korea and didn't expect much after the first few meetings. Same reaction, same hand-holding, same cluelessness. It was frustration to a painful degree for our team. When we met with U.S. venture capital firms, we were challenged with probing and insightful questions, feedback that made our business model better, and we always felt like we came out better from our meeting whether they were interested in us or not. I was hoping for just half of this from Asian venture capital firms, but this dream never solidified.
So on Tuesday, these two professionals didn't know how to ask questions or really challenge our thinking. Their two main comments I remember were, "I don't see the market for it." and "I don't see many potential applications." Typical Korean venture capitalists. This is after we explained how potential customers we spoke with saw so many applications and we gave several examples. Encountering cluelessness is frustrating for anyone pitching for financing.
Afterwards, I spoke with my friend, Jimmy, and talked about the meeting. He started to laugh because he knew the firm and said, "Of course they're like that... they're a typical Korean firm and the most conservative fund."
I replied, "I would rather that they be extreme assholes but friggin' brilliant, so that they could tear our business model and company apart, and give us a hundred reasons why we won't succeed or what we should change to improve the company. "I don't get it" just doesn't do it for me. At least ask me one good question..."
RACIST JAPAN... KOREA IS SECOND WORST IN ASIA
The American Thinker Writes on Japanese Immigrant Issues
"Immigrants Riot in Japan" by Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker.
Japan has very regrettable history of political violence involving ultra-nationalist forces. The American Thinker hopes and trusts that cooler heads will prevail in Japan. However, it is notable that in the current instance it was not the ?fascists? who resorted to force. The author, having resided in Japan, is well-aware of what it means to be a foreign guest, and urges punctilious respect for the local laws and sensibilities on the part of those who enjoy the hospitality of the Japanese.
I agree with Lifson's call for immigrants to be cautious and respectful. It is also understandable the frustrations many immigrants encounter in Japan and the racism is not only from the "facists" but I believe a majority of the society there. A strong racist, nationalist, and xenophobic culture prevail in Japan, but as with much of the society it is never outwardly shown. Immigrants are seen as second class citizens, and non-Japanese within Asia are looked down upon by some. From its national history to isolationist culture to America entertainment stereotypes (power of America's cultural imperialism), there are various reasons for Japan being as such but no real movement for greater awareness and change.
Korea is very similar. After living here for the past four years, I've come to realize Korea is a close second to Japan within Asia (my own scientific measures:). For example, even in the younger generation there is still much ignorance and a "so what" attitude here. Last year, a popular Korean singing group did a music video in "blackface." Four women with their faces painted pitch-black sang throughout their music video. Some Korean Americans in the music industry and a handful of Korean singers spoke out against the "blackface" and the singing group. No student protests on this issue. The pop group and their manager's initial attitude was "so what?", and they only apologized once their actions hit the foreign press and foreign companies, such as Universal Music, put some pressure on. It was amazing to me that these entertainers were so ignorant and insensitive even though a huge base of the Korean music industry is influenced by African American culture... so many hip hop and rap groups, so many wannabes.
I really don't know how and when change will begin in Korea or Japan. Ignorance and complacency are a difficult duo to combat.
|
The American Thinker Writes on Japanese Immigrant Issues
"Immigrants Riot in Japan" by Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker.
Japan has very regrettable history of political violence involving ultra-nationalist forces. The American Thinker hopes and trusts that cooler heads will prevail in Japan. However, it is notable that in the current instance it was not the ?fascists? who resorted to force. The author, having resided in Japan, is well-aware of what it means to be a foreign guest, and urges punctilious respect for the local laws and sensibilities on the part of those who enjoy the hospitality of the Japanese.
I agree with Lifson's call for immigrants to be cautious and respectful. It is also understandable the frustrations many immigrants encounter in Japan and the racism is not only from the "facists" but I believe a majority of the society there. A strong racist, nationalist, and xenophobic culture prevail in Japan, but as with much of the society it is never outwardly shown. Immigrants are seen as second class citizens, and non-Japanese within Asia are looked down upon by some. From its national history to isolationist culture to America entertainment stereotypes (power of America's cultural imperialism), there are various reasons for Japan being as such but no real movement for greater awareness and change.
Korea is very similar. After living here for the past four years, I've come to realize Korea is a close second to Japan within Asia (my own scientific measures:). For example, even in the younger generation there is still much ignorance and a "so what" attitude here. Last year, a popular Korean singing group did a music video in "blackface." Four women with their faces painted pitch-black sang throughout their music video. Some Korean Americans in the music industry and a handful of Korean singers spoke out against the "blackface" and the singing group. No student protests on this issue. The pop group and their manager's initial attitude was "so what?", and they only apologized once their actions hit the foreign press and foreign companies, such as Universal Music, put some pressure on. It was amazing to me that these entertainers were so ignorant and insensitive even though a huge base of the Korean music industry is influenced by African American culture... so many hip hop and rap groups, so many wannabes.
I really don't know how and when change will begin in Korea or Japan. Ignorance and complacency are a difficult duo to combat.
REALMEDIA... IS WIRELESS THEIR BEST HOPE?
Good article by Stefanie Olsen and Mike Yamamoto at News.com. Answered some of my questions from before. I wonder if they read my blog or entry at AlwaysOn (typical blogger egomania)? Either way, thanks for a good, informative article.
Microsoft just one factor in Net pioneer's chaotic history
By Stefanie Olsen and Mike Yamamoto
Staff Writers, CNET News.com
March 4, 4:00 AM PT
The message in RealNetworks' antitrust case against Microsoft is clear: "Predatory conduct" by Microsoft is responsible for lost business that could exceed $1 billion in damages to the digital-media company.
Regardless of the lawsuit's merits, however, Microsoft's opposition is only one of a remarkable string of hardships faced by RealNetworks. (full article)
|
Good article by Stefanie Olsen and Mike Yamamoto at News.com. Answered some of my questions from before. I wonder if they read my blog or entry at AlwaysOn (typical blogger egomania)? Either way, thanks for a good, informative article.
Microsoft just one factor in Net pioneer's chaotic history
By Stefanie Olsen and Mike Yamamoto
Staff Writers, CNET News.com
March 4, 4:00 AM PT
The message in RealNetworks' antitrust case against Microsoft is clear: "Predatory conduct" by Microsoft is responsible for lost business that could exceed $1 billion in damages to the digital-media company.
Regardless of the lawsuit's merits, however, Microsoft's opposition is only one of a remarkable string of hardships faced by RealNetworks. (full article)
KERRY'S WHACKOUT LOGIC
Lying About His Position on the War
From James Taranto's Best of the Web Today and the article in reference is below:
BUSH LIED!!!! by Telling the Truth
The San Francisco Chronicle's Debra Saunders got a chance at an editorial board meeting last week to quiz John Kerry about his claim that President Bush "misled" him into backing the liberation of Iraq:
Kerry says he believed the resolution tied President Bush to promises to build an international coalition, to work with the United Nations and only go to war as a last resort. A disappointed Kerry now says Bush failed in all three venues. . . .
A month before Kerry's "yes'' vote, Bush went to the United Nations and said the following: "Saddam Hussein has defied the United Nations 16 times. Not once, not twice--16 times he has defied the U.N. The U.N. has told him after the (Persian) Gulf War what to do, what the world expected, and 16 times he's defied it. And enough is enough. The U.N. will either be able to function as a peacekeeping body as we head into the 21st century, or it will be irrelevant. And that's what we're about to find out.''
Bush told the U.N. that if it failed to act, America and its allies would--as indeed they did. So where's the deception? Saunders:
Kerry's answer was that Washington insiders believed that Bush didn't mean what he said. "I think that you had a hard-line group (then Pentagon adviser) Richard Perle, (Deputy Defense Secretary) Paul Wolfowitz and probably (Vice President Dick) Cheney. But when Brent Scowcroft and Jim Baker (former advisers to the first President Bush) weighed in, very publicly in op-eds in the New York Times and the (Washington) Post, the chatter around Washington and (Secretary of State Colin) Powell in particular, who was very much of a different school of thought, was really that the president hadn't made up his mind. He was looking for an out. That's what a lot of people thought."
What about what Bush said to the U.N.? That was "rhetorical," Kerry answered. And "a whole bunch of very smart legitimate people" not running for president thought as he did. "So most people, actually on the inside, really felt that (Bush) himself was looking for the way out to sort of satisfy Cheney, satisfy Wolfowitz, but not get stuck." Kerry continued, "The fact that he jumped and went the other way, I think, shocked them and shocked us."
So Bush "misled" Kerry by telling the truth! As Saunders observes, "The scariest part is that Kerry looked as if he believed what he said."
Kerry's complicated exfoliation
San Francisco Chronicle
Debra J. Saunders
Wednesday, March 3, 2004
IT'S AN ODD campaign gimmick, but Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., often tells voters that he was "misled" and that's why he voted for an October 2002 resolution authorizing military force against Iraq. (full article)
|
Lying About His Position on the War
From James Taranto's Best of the Web Today and the article in reference is below:
BUSH LIED!!!! by Telling the Truth
The San Francisco Chronicle's Debra Saunders got a chance at an editorial board meeting last week to quiz John Kerry about his claim that President Bush "misled" him into backing the liberation of Iraq:
Kerry says he believed the resolution tied President Bush to promises to build an international coalition, to work with the United Nations and only go to war as a last resort. A disappointed Kerry now says Bush failed in all three venues. . . .
A month before Kerry's "yes'' vote, Bush went to the United Nations and said the following: "Saddam Hussein has defied the United Nations 16 times. Not once, not twice--16 times he has defied the U.N. The U.N. has told him after the (Persian) Gulf War what to do, what the world expected, and 16 times he's defied it. And enough is enough. The U.N. will either be able to function as a peacekeeping body as we head into the 21st century, or it will be irrelevant. And that's what we're about to find out.''
Bush told the U.N. that if it failed to act, America and its allies would--as indeed they did. So where's the deception? Saunders:
Kerry's answer was that Washington insiders believed that Bush didn't mean what he said. "I think that you had a hard-line group (then Pentagon adviser) Richard Perle, (Deputy Defense Secretary) Paul Wolfowitz and probably (Vice President Dick) Cheney. But when Brent Scowcroft and Jim Baker (former advisers to the first President Bush) weighed in, very publicly in op-eds in the New York Times and the (Washington) Post, the chatter around Washington and (Secretary of State Colin) Powell in particular, who was very much of a different school of thought, was really that the president hadn't made up his mind. He was looking for an out. That's what a lot of people thought."
What about what Bush said to the U.N.? That was "rhetorical," Kerry answered. And "a whole bunch of very smart legitimate people" not running for president thought as he did. "So most people, actually on the inside, really felt that (Bush) himself was looking for the way out to sort of satisfy Cheney, satisfy Wolfowitz, but not get stuck." Kerry continued, "The fact that he jumped and went the other way, I think, shocked them and shocked us."
So Bush "misled" Kerry by telling the truth! As Saunders observes, "The scariest part is that Kerry looked as if he believed what he said."
Kerry's complicated exfoliation
San Francisco Chronicle
Debra J. Saunders
Wednesday, March 3, 2004
IT'S AN ODD campaign gimmick, but Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., often tells voters that he was "misled" and that's why he voted for an October 2002 resolution authorizing military force against Iraq. (full article)
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
DICK MORRIS SPEAKS OUT ON KERRY
Agreed. Edwards was the better choice for the Dems for this election. Either way, I believe Bush is going to win, but a Bush vs. Edwards race would have been more fun to watch and participate in.
DEMOCRATS' MISTAKE
March 3, 2004 -- THE Democratic Party slit its throat last night, abandoning 12 years of pragmatism to indulge in a nominee who's very unlikely to win...
Too bad for the Democrats: Edwards would have been a much stronger candidate in November than Kerry will be. He is not the extreme liberal that the front-runner is and has not had 20 years in the Senate to demonstrate how out of touch he is with American values and ideas. (full article)
|
Agreed. Edwards was the better choice for the Dems for this election. Either way, I believe Bush is going to win, but a Bush vs. Edwards race would have been more fun to watch and participate in.
DEMOCRATS' MISTAKE
March 3, 2004 -- THE Democratic Party slit its throat last night, abandoning 12 years of pragmatism to indulge in a nominee who's very unlikely to win...
Too bad for the Democrats: Edwards would have been a much stronger candidate in November than Kerry will be. He is not the extreme liberal that the front-runner is and has not had 20 years in the Senate to demonstrate how out of touch he is with American values and ideas. (full article)
AUDIBLE MAGIC... KAZAA KILLER?
RIAA's New Pet... Showing It Off in Washington
"A new political battle is brewing over Net music swapping, focusing on a company that claims to be able to automatically identify copyrighted songs on networks like Kazaa and to block illegal downloads...
Audible Magic has predictably become a protege of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which has helped the company gain entree to official Washington circles. The group says Audible Magic's technology, or something like it, should be adopted by file-swapping companies if they are serious about not supporting widespread copyright infringement." (full article)
|
RIAA's New Pet... Showing It Off in Washington
"A new political battle is brewing over Net music swapping, focusing on a company that claims to be able to automatically identify copyrighted songs on networks like Kazaa and to block illegal downloads...
Audible Magic has predictably become a protege of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which has helped the company gain entree to official Washington circles. The group says Audible Magic's technology, or something like it, should be adopted by file-swapping companies if they are serious about not supporting widespread copyright infringement." (full article)
EBBERS SURRENDERS TO FEDS
Hopefully This Sad Chapter in American History Will Close Soon
"Ebbers was scheduled to be arraigned in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on three criminal counts -- fraud, conspiracy and making false statements about the financial health of WorldCom, which in 2002 filed the largest bankruptcy in history amid an $11 billion accounting scandal" (full story)
|
Hopefully This Sad Chapter in American History Will Close Soon
"Ebbers was scheduled to be arraigned in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on three criminal counts -- fraud, conspiracy and making false statements about the financial health of WorldCom, which in 2002 filed the largest bankruptcy in history amid an $11 billion accounting scandal" (full story)
ARCHIPELAGO GOING PUBLIC
How Will Electronics Communications Networks Change Trading?
Surviving the boom times, the day-trading craze, and various merger possibilities (e.g. Instinet acquiring Island), Archipelago is going public. I don't know about ECNs and the stock trading industry that much, so I was wondering how this IPO and ECNs in the future are going to change stock trading. Anyone?
Shoutout... to Jennifer, my close friend's wife, who works at Archipelago. Buy me dinner after the IPO please!
From Daniel Primack's PE Week Wire:
Archipelago Holdings Inc., a Chicago-based electronic stock exchange operator, has filed to raise $150 million via an IPO of common stock on the Nasdaq under proposed ticker symbol ARCA. Last December, the company received a $125 million private equity investment from General Atlantic Partners. General Atlantic and Goldman Sachs (which is lead underwriting the IPO) are Archipelago's largest shareholders.
(company press release)
|
How Will Electronics Communications Networks Change Trading?
Surviving the boom times, the day-trading craze, and various merger possibilities (e.g. Instinet acquiring Island), Archipelago is going public. I don't know about ECNs and the stock trading industry that much, so I was wondering how this IPO and ECNs in the future are going to change stock trading. Anyone?
Shoutout... to Jennifer, my close friend's wife, who works at Archipelago. Buy me dinner after the IPO please!
From Daniel Primack's PE Week Wire:
Archipelago Holdings Inc., a Chicago-based electronic stock exchange operator, has filed to raise $150 million via an IPO of common stock on the Nasdaq under proposed ticker symbol ARCA. Last December, the company received a $125 million private equity investment from General Atlantic Partners. General Atlantic and Goldman Sachs (which is lead underwriting the IPO) are Archipelago's largest shareholders.
(company press release)
VIDEO GAMES ARE BAD... WHATEVER... MAYBE?
I Turned Out Normal... At Least I Think So
Another study touting the negative effects of video games. I really didn't want to post this up since my girlfriend has almost a psychological aversion towards video games. She doesn't understand why someone like me plays video games. She believes it's a waste of time. I responded as a typical guy from the video game generation, "What's the difference between video games and watching TV or a DVD? It's just another form of entertainment that people 'waste' their time on... I grew up in the video game generation as a grade schooler I had the first Atari 2600 and continued on from there 'til college with the first Sega Genesis... And did you know the the video game industry passed the movie industry in terms of revenues last year? So many well-rounded, young professionals that are my friends and in their late twenties and mid-thirties play... I'm not some guy that stays in all day and plays..."
Of course, most of this falls on deaf ears. My video game playing goes in spurts. I played a lot with my college friends about half my time during college. Meaning Tecmo Bowl tournaments each year that lasted a month, or John Madden Football during my latter years. I also was Mortal Kombat champ on my campus... something to brag about, huh (crap, i'm such a geek)? I stopped playing video games after college and played once every few months during graduate school. I started up again while trying to connect with our engineers during my time at HeyAnita, so I would occasionally play Starcraft (amazing how Blizzard games dominate in Korea).
Anyway, regardless of what this study says, I do believe excessive violence in video games for children that play very frequently can cause more aggressive behavior. But the question is to what degree? To the point that he will go around shooting other kids at school? I do tend to agree with young Gustav Niel-Berggren below that majority of youth can distinguish between the video game world and reality. It's more of the outliers that are effected, but the difficulty is identifying if your child is an outlier. How do you know, especially since most parents would never identify their child as potentially unstable and ready to snap while playing a violent video game? As a future parent, I wouldn't ban all video games, but screen graphic and violent games during the early stages of child development... maybe because I just played Pong, Pitfall, Missle Command, and other light games as a child that I turned out to be a calm, stable person?
The study below is similar to the studies publicized when I was in grade school and junior high about the negative effects of Dungeons & Dragons. In the end, only those with already unstable histories got sucked in and couldn't distinguish between reality and the game... a rare few.
As for the weight issue, I bet the cold weather and diet in Sweden are stronger factors for making kids fat. I question the statistical significance of video game playing related to making kids fat. I'm fat now compared to my college days and I stopped playing video games after college. My weight gain is primarily due to a slower metabolism and sitting in front of a computer all day... aging not video games made me fat.
Video Games Make Kids Fat, Violent, Swedish Experts Say
STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Video games can make children fat and, in the case of violent games popular among teenage and younger boys, aggressive and even criminal, Swedish experts said on Monday.....
"It's concerning because they (video game players) are rehearsing scripts of behavior that will possibly play themselves out in real life," Michael Rich, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics who has studied the effects of entertainment media on the physical and mental health of children, was quoted as saying in the 45-minute "Deadly Game" documentary.....
Gustav Niel-Berggren, a 16-year-old student who said he tended to spend many hours a day several days a week playing an interactive online action game called Counter-Strike, which focuses on killing opponent soldiers, disagreed.
"Shooting somebody in a game is just like scoring a goal in a football match," he said, dismissing the documentary's suggestion and Lindblad's fear that youths could not distinguish between the game world and real life... (full article)
|
I Turned Out Normal... At Least I Think So
Another study touting the negative effects of video games. I really didn't want to post this up since my girlfriend has almost a psychological aversion towards video games. She doesn't understand why someone like me plays video games. She believes it's a waste of time. I responded as a typical guy from the video game generation, "What's the difference between video games and watching TV or a DVD? It's just another form of entertainment that people 'waste' their time on... I grew up in the video game generation as a grade schooler I had the first Atari 2600 and continued on from there 'til college with the first Sega Genesis... And did you know the the video game industry passed the movie industry in terms of revenues last year? So many well-rounded, young professionals that are my friends and in their late twenties and mid-thirties play... I'm not some guy that stays in all day and plays..."
Of course, most of this falls on deaf ears. My video game playing goes in spurts. I played a lot with my college friends about half my time during college. Meaning Tecmo Bowl tournaments each year that lasted a month, or John Madden Football during my latter years. I also was Mortal Kombat champ on my campus... something to brag about, huh (crap, i'm such a geek)? I stopped playing video games after college and played once every few months during graduate school. I started up again while trying to connect with our engineers during my time at HeyAnita, so I would occasionally play Starcraft (amazing how Blizzard games dominate in Korea).
Anyway, regardless of what this study says, I do believe excessive violence in video games for children that play very frequently can cause more aggressive behavior. But the question is to what degree? To the point that he will go around shooting other kids at school? I do tend to agree with young Gustav Niel-Berggren below that majority of youth can distinguish between the video game world and reality. It's more of the outliers that are effected, but the difficulty is identifying if your child is an outlier. How do you know, especially since most parents would never identify their child as potentially unstable and ready to snap while playing a violent video game? As a future parent, I wouldn't ban all video games, but screen graphic and violent games during the early stages of child development... maybe because I just played Pong, Pitfall, Missle Command, and other light games as a child that I turned out to be a calm, stable person?
The study below is similar to the studies publicized when I was in grade school and junior high about the negative effects of Dungeons & Dragons. In the end, only those with already unstable histories got sucked in and couldn't distinguish between reality and the game... a rare few.
As for the weight issue, I bet the cold weather and diet in Sweden are stronger factors for making kids fat. I question the statistical significance of video game playing related to making kids fat. I'm fat now compared to my college days and I stopped playing video games after college. My weight gain is primarily due to a slower metabolism and sitting in front of a computer all day... aging not video games made me fat.
Video Games Make Kids Fat, Violent, Swedish Experts Say
STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Video games can make children fat and, in the case of violent games popular among teenage and younger boys, aggressive and even criminal, Swedish experts said on Monday.....
"It's concerning because they (video game players) are rehearsing scripts of behavior that will possibly play themselves out in real life," Michael Rich, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics who has studied the effects of entertainment media on the physical and mental health of children, was quoted as saying in the 45-minute "Deadly Game" documentary.....
Gustav Niel-Berggren, a 16-year-old student who said he tended to spend many hours a day several days a week playing an interactive online action game called Counter-Strike, which focuses on killing opponent soldiers, disagreed.
"Shooting somebody in a game is just like scoring a goal in a football match," he said, dismissing the documentary's suggestion and Lindblad's fear that youths could not distinguish between the game world and real life... (full article)
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
"CASE NOT CLOSED ON IRAQ'S WMD STOCKPILES"
Roger Simon's Commentary on Doug Hanson's Article
I was going to post just a link to this article in The American Thinker by Douglas Hanson, former Chief of Staff of the Ministry of Science and Technology in Iraq , but I liked Roger Simon's commentary and a few of his readers' posts:
Those Pesky WMDs Again
I have stated numerous times that the existence of WMDs was not my primary reason for supporting the War in Iraq. It was more like the third or fourth reason (I won't rehash everything here because I think we've all gone over this ground ad inifnitum). Nevertheless, I recognize that the failure to find them has discredited the war for others.
Still I was troubled by the Kay Report because, ignorant fool that I am, I had difficulty believing anyone could be certain of the absence of WMDs in a country the size of Iraq in such a short time. Obviously I was not alone in this skepticism. Now comes this must read post from American Thinker written by Douglas Hanson, a man who knows vastly more about the subject than I do (and that's an understatement).
Some readers' comments:
I found Libya's turkey farm storage place a good example of the difficulty in finding anything.
Unless we went house to house, dug up the entire country (remember what was buried under the rosebush, much less what was in the frig) AND if our "rush to war" didn't take as long, we might have gotten lucky.
Posted by Sandy P. @ 03/02/2004 05:46 PM PST
Haven't read either the American Thinker piece or Kenneth Pollack's piece in the ATLANTIC, yet, but apparently Pollack also rejects Kay's assertion that Saddam's scientists simply defrauded him. He says they were far too terrified of him for Kay's scenario to be plausible.
Posted by Catherine @ 03/02/2004 06:37 PM PST
|
Roger Simon's Commentary on Doug Hanson's Article
I was going to post just a link to this article in The American Thinker by Douglas Hanson, former Chief of Staff of the Ministry of Science and Technology in Iraq , but I liked Roger Simon's commentary and a few of his readers' posts:
Those Pesky WMDs Again
I have stated numerous times that the existence of WMDs was not my primary reason for supporting the War in Iraq. It was more like the third or fourth reason (I won't rehash everything here because I think we've all gone over this ground ad inifnitum). Nevertheless, I recognize that the failure to find them has discredited the war for others.
Still I was troubled by the Kay Report because, ignorant fool that I am, I had difficulty believing anyone could be certain of the absence of WMDs in a country the size of Iraq in such a short time. Obviously I was not alone in this skepticism. Now comes this must read post from American Thinker written by Douglas Hanson, a man who knows vastly more about the subject than I do (and that's an understatement).
Some readers' comments:
I found Libya's turkey farm storage place a good example of the difficulty in finding anything.
Unless we went house to house, dug up the entire country (remember what was buried under the rosebush, much less what was in the frig) AND if our "rush to war" didn't take as long, we might have gotten lucky.
Posted by Sandy P. @ 03/02/2004 05:46 PM PST
Haven't read either the American Thinker piece or Kenneth Pollack's piece in the ATLANTIC, yet, but apparently Pollack also rejects Kay's assertion that Saddam's scientists simply defrauded him. He says they were far too terrified of him for Kay's scenario to be plausible.
Posted by Catherine @ 03/02/2004 06:37 PM PST
HOW TO TURN $100,000 INTO $48 MILLION
Larry Connors Interview with Michael Steinhardt
Larry Connors, from TradingMarkets.com, interviewed a hedge fund legend, Michael Steinhardt. Some of the interview below:
How To Turn $100,000 Into $48 Million
February 27, 2004
By Larry Connors
One of the things that I and many other people like to do is read about the success of others. From their experiences we can all learn ways that make the path to achievement a bit easier to travel.
This past week I re-read an interview we did with Michael Steinhardt. For those of you who don't recognize the name, Mr. Steinhardt was one of the top hedge fund managers in the world for nearly three decades. An investment of $100,000 made with him at the beginning of his career would have grown into $48 million when he retired 28 years later. This type of performance is nothing short of amazing and the knowledge he possesses is vast. In the following interview which we first published in 2002, Michael was kind enough to share some of this knowledge with us. I hope you enjoy our talk with him (for many of you, again). Next week, I'll return our focus on the current market and I'll share with you some never-before-published research on short-term trading.
The Interview
Two weeks ago, I had the honor of speaking with hedge fund legend Michael Steinhardt. When I was preparing to interview him, I was looking most for insight into his trading style and his trading strategies. Turning each investor's $100,000 into over $48 million dollars in 28 years (after fees!) from trading is not something one sees on a daily basis. Was Steinhardt's edge some magical trading strategy or some magical system? The answer is absolutely "No." Is Steinhardt a financial genius? In my opinion, he's smart…very smart. But probably no smarter than many of the members of TradingMarkets.com.
Steinhardt's edge is a combination of his intensity to get an edge with knowledge, combined with a mental intensity that few people could survive. It's his ability to measure himself and his performance hourly, every day, for 28 straight years. Most individuals would self-destruct under such intense pressure.But for the few, like Michael Steinhardt, who can do this, the results are simply spectacular.
Here is my talk with him. If you are looking for a "Holy Grail" trading system, you'll be disappointed. You won't find it here. If you're looking for some insight into what it takes to mentally succeed at an extreme level, Michael Steinhardt has the answer.
Larry Connors: I want to tell you, your book, No Bull: My Life In and Out of Markets,is terrific - it's been a week and a half since I got it -- and I've read it twice.
Michael Steinhardt: Really? Thank you. I appreciate that.
Connors: OK, real quickly on your trading style. It's a top-down approach. Everything begins with market direction? Is that correct?
Steinhardt: Not everything, but a lot of things begin with markets. But the real philosophy isn't that so much: It's to come in every day with the idea that you are devoting that portion of your life, that you are devoting most of your energy that day, to making money. And that day will be measured -- because the stock market has this wonderful thing where almost everything is measured. A success will be when you do well, and a failure will be when you don't do well.
It's not a phenomenon that you measure irregularly or every year or even every month. You really measure it every day. If you think about it that way, you think about the opportunities that develop every day. Those could be the call from some guy at an institutional desk who has a big block of something, or a sense that there's a change, or something you see in the newspaper, or something that provokes you based on some past experience.
While this doesn't reflect the totality of your portfolio, it reflects some portion of it and something that you might do that might add some increment to your overall performance based on what you saw that day. Therefore, it's not only a matter of what you asked in your question in terms of top down or bottoms up, or anything like that.
It's a matter of using every opportunity you can, of all sorts of types -- from the theoretical and cerebral to the "chasing down new issues," (pardon the expression) that I used to do because my measure of myself was my performance. Period. And if that performance could be enhanced by spending time, getting in a little early and listening to all the block indications, and seeing if I could pick up some hint of something by doing that, that was part of my game.
Connors: In your book, you talk a lot about your intensity -- the aggressiveness of your management style. I came away from it saying, "This is really a large part of this man's edge. This is the reason for this phenomenal performance. His edge is his intensity. It's almost your willpower, and it's beyond 99.9% of what anyone else on Wall Street brings on a daily basis. Is that an accurate assessment? Do you perceive it that way?
Steinhardt: I do. I wish I could say it were otherwise, frankly. I wish I could say that if I, in some dilettantish way, came in and said, "Copper! Copper! (laughs) Copper is the metal of the early 21st century!" And I just made a judgment and I went home, and in two years I came back and I made a fortune - or supposedly what Buffett does. I mean, it doesn't have the same intensity. It doesn't consume the same energy; it's not as emotionally draining. The way I did it is not an ideal way to do it, it seems to me, in terms of one's lifestyle. But I do answer your question in the affirmative, as a function of intensity, as a function of the feeling that my own self -- and my sense of self -- fluctuated with performance.
Connors: To me, another fascinating, eye-opening thing that I read in your book was when you say, "A track record over the years was achieved through intense devotion to the principles of long-term investing that was tempered by my compulsive need to have monthly, weekly, and even daily profits."
And then about 10 pages later, you say, "Warren Buffett has said, 'If you're not willing to own a stock for 10 years, do not even think about owning it for 10 minutes.' The truth of the matter is I've never owned a stock for 10 years but have had the unique and profitable experience of owning some very good companies for 10 minutes."
How do you balance those two philosophies?
Steinhardt: Well, the word "balance" is an interesting word there, and I'm not sure you do "balance" those two philosophies -- and often they're in conflict -- but the technique that I used was based upon my history as an analyst.
Somehow, I took the view that by doing analytic work and making the sorts of judgments that are long-term in nature, I would come to certain conclusions -- that I would use those conclusions for both longer-term judgments, as well as trading.
While there may be some question about how relevant longer-term judgments are in trading, maybe that dubiousness is somehow tempered by the fact that there is an element of timing in whatever you do. Particularly if one is focused on a company or an industry and there's a sense that things are changing, if one can conclude quicker than the rest of the world what those changes are going to be - even though they are of a long-term nature, they often have a short-term impact.
So that's the sort of thing I try to do: To think about things that led to some perception of truth. Truth is a funny word, but truth has a certain timeless quality. But then, when you narrow it down, the truth that you think you've found before the rest of the world that will result in a 30% or 40% gain in a year (if it results in a 12% gain in two weeks) -- the equation's really changed.
.....
Connors: If that's true, obviously whatever edge you had is an enormous edge. Is that edge balanced off a little bit now because of the dissemination of information, or would you just be attacking this game a little bit differently because that edge might have gone away.
Steinhardt: I felt with perhaps one or two caveats, reasonably comfortable in going into areas where I did not have so much of an experience edge and being able to function well in those areas, because so much of the judgments I used started out with a macro-orientation, so when I speculated in bonds (even though I didn't have nearly the experience in bonds that I had in stocks), I felt relatively comfortable fairly quickly, although I must say on one level it was a rather amateurish comfort, because I didn't even know the phraseology of the bonds -- and I'm not sure I could totally understand analyses that related to the yield curve and stuff like that.
But I certainly could understand, you know, the sense of where people thought the economy was going and what a disparate perception would be, in terms of broader economic judgments and their likely implication in terms of Fed policy, stuff like that, which was sufficient I thought, to allow me to function in a lot of markets. It may be a cliché at this point, but the idea of "variant perception" really works -- and it works in most markets.
.....
Connors: But why would I be more right making that decision than anybody else who has, for argument's sake, a bell-curve upbringing and a bell-curve perception of the world?
Steinhardt: OK, that question goes back to the first question you asked in terms of longer-term perception, what we've tended to do here is think about those broader issues. What we've further thought about -- and this may be a stretch for some people -- that the application of energy, intellect and judgment to broader areas could lead, on balance, to better conclusions. Now some people may deny this. Some might say that your ability, my ability or anybody's ability, to predict some macro judgment about interest rates or currencies, or the level of the stock market - it's all random. If you believe that, then the idea of variant perception, in a broad sense, diminishes a great deal.
But if, on the other hand, you believe that if you were devote 100% of your energy to the idea of studying Japan (for example) and that through that effort you would have a better understanding of Japan, or a sense of change more quickly than other people, then that creates the opportunity for you.
Connors: It's a knowledge game
Steinhardt: It's a knowledge game.
Connors: If I came to you and said, "Today is Day One. I want to get into the hedge fund business. I want to achieve what you've achieved. What would you tell me to do?
Steinhardt: Well, I'd tell you to start early. I'd tell you to ask yourself questions like: "What do I really care about?" "Does it make me feel really good when I pick what I used to refer to as the moving parts?" You know, a lot of people in the business really enjoy persuading people to do things. A lot of people enjoy trading securities. A lot of people enjoy doing research. There are different things one can do. I really enjoyed being right. That's what I cared about.
So first you've got to really know yourself and know that's the thing that really makes you happy, that really is fulfilling. That to be right, to make the right judgments is important to you -- because without that, you don't easily have the intensity and without the intensity you're not likely to give it the necessary energy to be competitively superior.
I think one should look at this game -- as a professional in the stock market - as a competitive enterprise and you have to think about the fact that there are nameless, faceless legions of people trying to do the same thing you're doing and trying to outsmart the market. To do it, you've got to be better, smarter, more intense, etc., etc., etc.
So I would start as early in life as possible. I would not think that it could be done by any cerebral process - that it's a matter of energy and intellect, and emotion and time. I'm not sure I'm saying something that you really don't know.
Connors: But it's a philosophy that not only applies to being a hedge fund manager, but applies to being at the top of any game. Jack Welch would probably be saying the same thing, as would Vince Lombardi…
Steinhardt: That's probably true. The differences, if any, are that with the hedge fund area, you have the great virtue of being measured every day, or every hour, or any time you press a button. And it's that judgment that dominates. You can't say, "You know, I would have had a great year except for the fact of Sept. 11." Or, "I was doing terrifically - except that they ambushed me on the earnings."
It's all in the numbers, and once you accept the fact that the numbers are the overall measure and however justified or unjustified your performance is, based upon whatever facts were involved, you have to live with that.
Connors: And the pressures that come from that -- with that daily self-imposed performance measurement you've set yourself. That's phenomenal. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Steinhardt: You're very welcome.
Conclusion
Here is your formula for turning $100,000 into $48 million, Michael Steinhardt style:
1. You execute and gain a knowledge edge.
2. And you do this at a 30% average annual rate every year for 28 years.
3. Then you break this down to quarterly and monthly performance benchmarks for 28 years.
4. And then (and this is Steinhardt's edge) you put unthinkable pressure on yourself to perform and execute at this level every hour, of every day, of every week, of every month, of every quarter, of every year, for 28 straight years.
Few people are willing to play at this extreme level. But for those who are (like Michael Steinhardt), the results speak for themselves.
Have a great week trading!
Larry Connors
|
Larry Connors Interview with Michael Steinhardt
Larry Connors, from TradingMarkets.com, interviewed a hedge fund legend, Michael Steinhardt. Some of the interview below:
How To Turn $100,000 Into $48 Million
February 27, 2004
By Larry Connors
One of the things that I and many other people like to do is read about the success of others. From their experiences we can all learn ways that make the path to achievement a bit easier to travel.
This past week I re-read an interview we did with Michael Steinhardt. For those of you who don't recognize the name, Mr. Steinhardt was one of the top hedge fund managers in the world for nearly three decades. An investment of $100,000 made with him at the beginning of his career would have grown into $48 million when he retired 28 years later. This type of performance is nothing short of amazing and the knowledge he possesses is vast. In the following interview which we first published in 2002, Michael was kind enough to share some of this knowledge with us. I hope you enjoy our talk with him (for many of you, again). Next week, I'll return our focus on the current market and I'll share with you some never-before-published research on short-term trading.
The Interview
Two weeks ago, I had the honor of speaking with hedge fund legend Michael Steinhardt. When I was preparing to interview him, I was looking most for insight into his trading style and his trading strategies. Turning each investor's $100,000 into over $48 million dollars in 28 years (after fees!) from trading is not something one sees on a daily basis. Was Steinhardt's edge some magical trading strategy or some magical system? The answer is absolutely "No." Is Steinhardt a financial genius? In my opinion, he's smart…very smart. But probably no smarter than many of the members of TradingMarkets.com.
Steinhardt's edge is a combination of his intensity to get an edge with knowledge, combined with a mental intensity that few people could survive. It's his ability to measure himself and his performance hourly, every day, for 28 straight years. Most individuals would self-destruct under such intense pressure.But for the few, like Michael Steinhardt, who can do this, the results are simply spectacular.
Here is my talk with him. If you are looking for a "Holy Grail" trading system, you'll be disappointed. You won't find it here. If you're looking for some insight into what it takes to mentally succeed at an extreme level, Michael Steinhardt has the answer.
Larry Connors: I want to tell you, your book, No Bull: My Life In and Out of Markets,is terrific - it's been a week and a half since I got it -- and I've read it twice.
Michael Steinhardt: Really? Thank you. I appreciate that.
Connors: OK, real quickly on your trading style. It's a top-down approach. Everything begins with market direction? Is that correct?
Steinhardt: Not everything, but a lot of things begin with markets. But the real philosophy isn't that so much: It's to come in every day with the idea that you are devoting that portion of your life, that you are devoting most of your energy that day, to making money. And that day will be measured -- because the stock market has this wonderful thing where almost everything is measured. A success will be when you do well, and a failure will be when you don't do well.
It's not a phenomenon that you measure irregularly or every year or even every month. You really measure it every day. If you think about it that way, you think about the opportunities that develop every day. Those could be the call from some guy at an institutional desk who has a big block of something, or a sense that there's a change, or something you see in the newspaper, or something that provokes you based on some past experience.
While this doesn't reflect the totality of your portfolio, it reflects some portion of it and something that you might do that might add some increment to your overall performance based on what you saw that day. Therefore, it's not only a matter of what you asked in your question in terms of top down or bottoms up, or anything like that.
It's a matter of using every opportunity you can, of all sorts of types -- from the theoretical and cerebral to the "chasing down new issues," (pardon the expression) that I used to do because my measure of myself was my performance. Period. And if that performance could be enhanced by spending time, getting in a little early and listening to all the block indications, and seeing if I could pick up some hint of something by doing that, that was part of my game.
Connors: In your book, you talk a lot about your intensity -- the aggressiveness of your management style. I came away from it saying, "This is really a large part of this man's edge. This is the reason for this phenomenal performance. His edge is his intensity. It's almost your willpower, and it's beyond 99.9% of what anyone else on Wall Street brings on a daily basis. Is that an accurate assessment? Do you perceive it that way?
Steinhardt: I do. I wish I could say it were otherwise, frankly. I wish I could say that if I, in some dilettantish way, came in and said, "Copper! Copper! (laughs) Copper is the metal of the early 21st century!" And I just made a judgment and I went home, and in two years I came back and I made a fortune - or supposedly what Buffett does. I mean, it doesn't have the same intensity. It doesn't consume the same energy; it's not as emotionally draining. The way I did it is not an ideal way to do it, it seems to me, in terms of one's lifestyle. But I do answer your question in the affirmative, as a function of intensity, as a function of the feeling that my own self -- and my sense of self -- fluctuated with performance.
Connors: To me, another fascinating, eye-opening thing that I read in your book was when you say, "A track record over the years was achieved through intense devotion to the principles of long-term investing that was tempered by my compulsive need to have monthly, weekly, and even daily profits."
And then about 10 pages later, you say, "Warren Buffett has said, 'If you're not willing to own a stock for 10 years, do not even think about owning it for 10 minutes.' The truth of the matter is I've never owned a stock for 10 years but have had the unique and profitable experience of owning some very good companies for 10 minutes."
How do you balance those two philosophies?
Steinhardt: Well, the word "balance" is an interesting word there, and I'm not sure you do "balance" those two philosophies -- and often they're in conflict -- but the technique that I used was based upon my history as an analyst.
Somehow, I took the view that by doing analytic work and making the sorts of judgments that are long-term in nature, I would come to certain conclusions -- that I would use those conclusions for both longer-term judgments, as well as trading.
While there may be some question about how relevant longer-term judgments are in trading, maybe that dubiousness is somehow tempered by the fact that there is an element of timing in whatever you do. Particularly if one is focused on a company or an industry and there's a sense that things are changing, if one can conclude quicker than the rest of the world what those changes are going to be - even though they are of a long-term nature, they often have a short-term impact.
So that's the sort of thing I try to do: To think about things that led to some perception of truth. Truth is a funny word, but truth has a certain timeless quality. But then, when you narrow it down, the truth that you think you've found before the rest of the world that will result in a 30% or 40% gain in a year (if it results in a 12% gain in two weeks) -- the equation's really changed.
.....
Connors: If that's true, obviously whatever edge you had is an enormous edge. Is that edge balanced off a little bit now because of the dissemination of information, or would you just be attacking this game a little bit differently because that edge might have gone away.
Steinhardt: I felt with perhaps one or two caveats, reasonably comfortable in going into areas where I did not have so much of an experience edge and being able to function well in those areas, because so much of the judgments I used started out with a macro-orientation, so when I speculated in bonds (even though I didn't have nearly the experience in bonds that I had in stocks), I felt relatively comfortable fairly quickly, although I must say on one level it was a rather amateurish comfort, because I didn't even know the phraseology of the bonds -- and I'm not sure I could totally understand analyses that related to the yield curve and stuff like that.
But I certainly could understand, you know, the sense of where people thought the economy was going and what a disparate perception would be, in terms of broader economic judgments and their likely implication in terms of Fed policy, stuff like that, which was sufficient I thought, to allow me to function in a lot of markets. It may be a cliché at this point, but the idea of "variant perception" really works -- and it works in most markets.
.....
Connors: But why would I be more right making that decision than anybody else who has, for argument's sake, a bell-curve upbringing and a bell-curve perception of the world?
Steinhardt: OK, that question goes back to the first question you asked in terms of longer-term perception, what we've tended to do here is think about those broader issues. What we've further thought about -- and this may be a stretch for some people -- that the application of energy, intellect and judgment to broader areas could lead, on balance, to better conclusions. Now some people may deny this. Some might say that your ability, my ability or anybody's ability, to predict some macro judgment about interest rates or currencies, or the level of the stock market - it's all random. If you believe that, then the idea of variant perception, in a broad sense, diminishes a great deal.
But if, on the other hand, you believe that if you were devote 100% of your energy to the idea of studying Japan (for example) and that through that effort you would have a better understanding of Japan, or a sense of change more quickly than other people, then that creates the opportunity for you.
Connors: It's a knowledge game
Steinhardt: It's a knowledge game.
Connors: If I came to you and said, "Today is Day One. I want to get into the hedge fund business. I want to achieve what you've achieved. What would you tell me to do?
Steinhardt: Well, I'd tell you to start early. I'd tell you to ask yourself questions like: "What do I really care about?" "Does it make me feel really good when I pick what I used to refer to as the moving parts?" You know, a lot of people in the business really enjoy persuading people to do things. A lot of people enjoy trading securities. A lot of people enjoy doing research. There are different things one can do. I really enjoyed being right. That's what I cared about.
So first you've got to really know yourself and know that's the thing that really makes you happy, that really is fulfilling. That to be right, to make the right judgments is important to you -- because without that, you don't easily have the intensity and without the intensity you're not likely to give it the necessary energy to be competitively superior.
I think one should look at this game -- as a professional in the stock market - as a competitive enterprise and you have to think about the fact that there are nameless, faceless legions of people trying to do the same thing you're doing and trying to outsmart the market. To do it, you've got to be better, smarter, more intense, etc., etc., etc.
So I would start as early in life as possible. I would not think that it could be done by any cerebral process - that it's a matter of energy and intellect, and emotion and time. I'm not sure I'm saying something that you really don't know.
Connors: But it's a philosophy that not only applies to being a hedge fund manager, but applies to being at the top of any game. Jack Welch would probably be saying the same thing, as would Vince Lombardi…
Steinhardt: That's probably true. The differences, if any, are that with the hedge fund area, you have the great virtue of being measured every day, or every hour, or any time you press a button. And it's that judgment that dominates. You can't say, "You know, I would have had a great year except for the fact of Sept. 11." Or, "I was doing terrifically - except that they ambushed me on the earnings."
It's all in the numbers, and once you accept the fact that the numbers are the overall measure and however justified or unjustified your performance is, based upon whatever facts were involved, you have to live with that.
Connors: And the pressures that come from that -- with that daily self-imposed performance measurement you've set yourself. That's phenomenal. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Steinhardt: You're very welcome.
Conclusion
Here is your formula for turning $100,000 into $48 million, Michael Steinhardt style:
1. You execute and gain a knowledge edge.
2. And you do this at a 30% average annual rate every year for 28 years.
3. Then you break this down to quarterly and monthly performance benchmarks for 28 years.
4. And then (and this is Steinhardt's edge) you put unthinkable pressure on yourself to perform and execute at this level every hour, of every day, of every week, of every month, of every quarter, of every year, for 28 straight years.
Few people are willing to play at this extreme level. But for those who are (like Michael Steinhardt), the results speak for themselves.
Have a great week trading!
Larry Connors
Monday, March 01, 2004
FROM SLATES'S KAUSFILES... ANOTHER DEM SPEAKSOUT
Mickey Kaus's article on Kerry has some insightful points. One example cracks me up:
This is why the oft-told story of Kerry protesting the Vietnam war by throwing someone else's medals away resonates uncomfortably. Kerry wasn't willing to take the risk of parting with his own medals. They might come in handy some day! Even in his moment of maximum political bravado he was cautious.
Kerry is a loser. I don't agree with these anti-war rallies of the past, but imagine if you're a veteran throwing away your medals as part of the protest and you see this guy not doing the same. Wouldn't you question his commitment to the cause? His heart? What his true motivations are?
Or if you're a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and Kerry asks you to use your medals since he doesn't want to part with his? What would you think? If I was there during those times and working with Kerry, I would think he doesn't truly believe in the cause. I would eventually guess (correctly) that the only cause John Kerry is there for is HIMSELF. Kerry is not 'good people', as they say in the South. What a two-faced slime. Is this the best candidate the Dems can come up with?
I really wish America had two good options for this year's election. Where are you Bill Bradley?
The Trouble With Kerry
Your one-stop center for doubts about JFK2.
Monday, March 1, 2004
I'm a Democrat, but I have two big fears about John Kerry. The first is that he'll lose. The second is that he'll win. Let's take the second possibility first. One reason Kerry might lose, after all, is an inchoate public intuition that he would not be a successful president. (full article)
|
Mickey Kaus's article on Kerry has some insightful points. One example cracks me up:
This is why the oft-told story of Kerry protesting the Vietnam war by throwing someone else's medals away resonates uncomfortably. Kerry wasn't willing to take the risk of parting with his own medals. They might come in handy some day! Even in his moment of maximum political bravado he was cautious.
Kerry is a loser. I don't agree with these anti-war rallies of the past, but imagine if you're a veteran throwing away your medals as part of the protest and you see this guy not doing the same. Wouldn't you question his commitment to the cause? His heart? What his true motivations are?
Or if you're a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and Kerry asks you to use your medals since he doesn't want to part with his? What would you think? If I was there during those times and working with Kerry, I would think he doesn't truly believe in the cause. I would eventually guess (correctly) that the only cause John Kerry is there for is HIMSELF. Kerry is not 'good people', as they say in the South. What a two-faced slime. Is this the best candidate the Dems can come up with?
I really wish America had two good options for this year's election. Where are you Bill Bradley?
The Trouble With Kerry
Your one-stop center for doubts about JFK2.
Monday, March 1, 2004
I'm a Democrat, but I have two big fears about John Kerry. The first is that he'll lose. The second is that he'll win. Let's take the second possibility first. One reason Kerry might lose, after all, is an inchoate public intuition that he would not be a successful president. (full article)
CHIPPING AWAY AT KERRY'S VIETNAM CARD
Good editorial against Kerry.
A Shameful Past
Don't play the Vietnam card with me, John Kerry.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BY LAURA BARTHOLOMEW ARMSTRONG
Monday, March 1, 2004
The Vietnamization of the 2004 presidential campaign has unfortunately begun, thanks to the likely Democratic nominee. But John Kerry's service--Vietnam, in case you haven't heard--doesn't exist in a vacuum. His 19-year Senate record is at long odds with that short naval career, just as his vote to send troops to liberate Iraq is at odds with his later vote not to fund the mission. His supporters ask us to note his heroism in combat. We have, ad nauseam. But more important, and the thing he doesn't want discussed, is the well-documented though less well-known hypocrisy of those who use his service to further their antimilitary agenda.
I'm the daughter of Lt. Col. Roger J. "Black Bart" Bartholomew, a First Air Cavalry rocket artillery helicopter pilot who was killed in Vietnam on Thanksgiving Day 1968, when I was eight years old. I'm a former journalist with a military newspaper, a U.S. Marine widow, and I am appalled at Mr. Kerry's latest assertions that our president "has reopened the wounds of Vietnam." For months, I've heard President Bush talking about the present, while Mr. Kerry and the media want to focus on the past. I think we need to see the whole picture.
Liberal critics of American foreign policy have claimed they "support the troops"--but they're obviously hoping we have short memories. Many of us will never forget the hundreds of lawyers they dispatched to Florida in 2000 to make sure military absentee ballots did not get counted (some sources say that two out of three military voices in Florida were never heard). That was after the Clinton administration initiated rules making it more difficult to vote on overseas military bases.
Mr. Kerry and his party overwhelmingly oppose Pentagon funding and equipment, and make life miserable for our services on Capitol Hill. The liberals who sneered at the concept of duct tape keeping us safe last year are the same congressmen who find it acceptable when our brave and resourceful Marines must use it to hold together 40-year-old helicopters in combat. My brother Jay, a CH-46 pilot, used it during the first Gulf War, and our guys are still flying those same helicopters a decade later.
Mr. Kerry has tried to distance himself from some anti-war activists and surround himself with veterans, yet his anti-military voting record speaks much louder and resonates with those of us who are affected by the results.
Kerry supporters are the ones who would applaud my high school social studies teacher, a draft dodger who in 1976 banished me to the library for the duration of our Vietnam unit because I questioned his one-sided presentation of our troops as baby killers. Dare I say, these are the same people who spat on our guys back in the 1960s and disdained them in the '70s.
These were the people who in 1992 mocked Ross Perot's running mate, Adm. James Stockdale, a true hero and former prisoner of war, after his hearing aid (legacy of Viet Cong torture masters) gave him trouble during a televised debate. They downplayed Bob Dole's military service in 1996. And these are the same people who just last year yelled antimilitary slurs at dependents driving vehicles with Defense Department stickers--even picked on military kids about what their daddies did for a living. These are the Americans who love to enjoy the liberties of our land, yet have little understanding about those who actually risk their lives to ensure they exist. Until, of course, their candidate can claim that service on his résumé, and then they know all about us.
As the kid of a real war hero who did not come back, I'd like to comment not on Kerry's service, but his postservice activities. Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Mr. Kerry's organization of choice when he returned from his shortened tour of duty in Vietnam (and his springboard to fame), was known to me even as a child. The organization, while providing a place for angst-ridden vets to land after coming home, had an awful effect on those of us who lost our fathers.
It was bad enough to hear our dads criticized by those who hated the military, but to hear vets allege rampant war crimes and call their fellow soldiers evil before all the world really twisted the knife. Mr. Kerry led the way, proud in the company of Jane Fonda and others we believed had caused the deaths of good men. This group's testimony tarnished honorable actions. After taking the oath to preserve and protect, they grandstanded, throwing service awards in a show of defiance that diminished each sacrifice. Their stories dominated while the stories of thousands of honorable vets went untold. I don't hold it against them after so many years, but I'm dead sure I don't want their darling Kerry, the man who voted against funding our guys in Operation Iraqi Freedom, to be our next commander in chief.
In 2004, nothing is more important than continuing to protect America and fight terrorism. President Bush has led, not perfectly but earnestly. He has put much on the line to do what he believes is right. And he needs our continued support in the months to come.
Ms. Armstrong is a freelance writer in Atlanta and mother of two.
|
Good editorial against Kerry.
A Shameful Past
Don't play the Vietnam card with me, John Kerry.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BY LAURA BARTHOLOMEW ARMSTRONG
Monday, March 1, 2004
The Vietnamization of the 2004 presidential campaign has unfortunately begun, thanks to the likely Democratic nominee. But John Kerry's service--Vietnam, in case you haven't heard--doesn't exist in a vacuum. His 19-year Senate record is at long odds with that short naval career, just as his vote to send troops to liberate Iraq is at odds with his later vote not to fund the mission. His supporters ask us to note his heroism in combat. We have, ad nauseam. But more important, and the thing he doesn't want discussed, is the well-documented though less well-known hypocrisy of those who use his service to further their antimilitary agenda.
I'm the daughter of Lt. Col. Roger J. "Black Bart" Bartholomew, a First Air Cavalry rocket artillery helicopter pilot who was killed in Vietnam on Thanksgiving Day 1968, when I was eight years old. I'm a former journalist with a military newspaper, a U.S. Marine widow, and I am appalled at Mr. Kerry's latest assertions that our president "has reopened the wounds of Vietnam." For months, I've heard President Bush talking about the present, while Mr. Kerry and the media want to focus on the past. I think we need to see the whole picture.
Liberal critics of American foreign policy have claimed they "support the troops"--but they're obviously hoping we have short memories. Many of us will never forget the hundreds of lawyers they dispatched to Florida in 2000 to make sure military absentee ballots did not get counted (some sources say that two out of three military voices in Florida were never heard). That was after the Clinton administration initiated rules making it more difficult to vote on overseas military bases.
Mr. Kerry and his party overwhelmingly oppose Pentagon funding and equipment, and make life miserable for our services on Capitol Hill. The liberals who sneered at the concept of duct tape keeping us safe last year are the same congressmen who find it acceptable when our brave and resourceful Marines must use it to hold together 40-year-old helicopters in combat. My brother Jay, a CH-46 pilot, used it during the first Gulf War, and our guys are still flying those same helicopters a decade later.
Mr. Kerry has tried to distance himself from some anti-war activists and surround himself with veterans, yet his anti-military voting record speaks much louder and resonates with those of us who are affected by the results.
Kerry supporters are the ones who would applaud my high school social studies teacher, a draft dodger who in 1976 banished me to the library for the duration of our Vietnam unit because I questioned his one-sided presentation of our troops as baby killers. Dare I say, these are the same people who spat on our guys back in the 1960s and disdained them in the '70s.
These were the people who in 1992 mocked Ross Perot's running mate, Adm. James Stockdale, a true hero and former prisoner of war, after his hearing aid (legacy of Viet Cong torture masters) gave him trouble during a televised debate. They downplayed Bob Dole's military service in 1996. And these are the same people who just last year yelled antimilitary slurs at dependents driving vehicles with Defense Department stickers--even picked on military kids about what their daddies did for a living. These are the Americans who love to enjoy the liberties of our land, yet have little understanding about those who actually risk their lives to ensure they exist. Until, of course, their candidate can claim that service on his résumé, and then they know all about us.
As the kid of a real war hero who did not come back, I'd like to comment not on Kerry's service, but his postservice activities. Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Mr. Kerry's organization of choice when he returned from his shortened tour of duty in Vietnam (and his springboard to fame), was known to me even as a child. The organization, while providing a place for angst-ridden vets to land after coming home, had an awful effect on those of us who lost our fathers.
It was bad enough to hear our dads criticized by those who hated the military, but to hear vets allege rampant war crimes and call their fellow soldiers evil before all the world really twisted the knife. Mr. Kerry led the way, proud in the company of Jane Fonda and others we believed had caused the deaths of good men. This group's testimony tarnished honorable actions. After taking the oath to preserve and protect, they grandstanded, throwing service awards in a show of defiance that diminished each sacrifice. Their stories dominated while the stories of thousands of honorable vets went untold. I don't hold it against them after so many years, but I'm dead sure I don't want their darling Kerry, the man who voted against funding our guys in Operation Iraqi Freedom, to be our next commander in chief.
In 2004, nothing is more important than continuing to protect America and fight terrorism. President Bush has led, not perfectly but earnestly. He has put much on the line to do what he believes is right. And he needs our continued support in the months to come.
Ms. Armstrong is a freelance writer in Atlanta and mother of two.
Business & Technology, Politics, and Random Posts from the Left, Right, and Elsewhere
Place of Birth: Seoul, Korea
Hometown: Northbrook, IL USA
Lived in: Seoul, Chicago (Villa Park & Northbrook), Madison, WI, Springfield, IL, St. Louis, New York City, Chicago (Glenview), Seoul, San Francisco
Also blogs at: AlwaysOn, Coro Blog, SportsBlog
More on Bernard or Blogger profile or GoingOn profile or Linkedin profile
Max Yow
Homeland: Canada
Sports: combative sports, sports you play with a ball, sports with no swimming, sports you can play while drinking and smoking (pool, darts, bowling, video games).
More on Max
ARCHIVES
- April 2003
- May 2003
- June 2003
- July 2003
- August 2003
- September 2003
- October 2003
- November 2003
- December 2003
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- Current Posts
If you have questions, topic ideas, or whatever, just email bernard at bernard.moon@gmail.com. Thank you!
site feed
forget the long tail!
(03/21/2006)
2084
(11/02/2005)
building the perfect team
(08/17/2005)
open it up, new york times, chicago tribune, san francisco chronicle!
(06/07/2005)
staring down the digital divide
(06/08/2005)
2005 world series of poker... tech style
(03/30/2005)
rss: real simple syndication or really saturated space?
(02/10/2005)
blogosphere: lost in translation?
(02/10/2005)
diamonds in the rough at redmond
(02/10/2005)
it's a wiki wiki world
(02/03/2005)
where technology is ubiquitous, opportunity abounds
(1/12/2005)
start of "reality media" column
(12/23/2004)
Tech
bill joy's apocalyptic vision, determinism, and commonality with stephen hawking
(07/22/2005)
google economy => blogosphere
(01/25/2005)
power of the long tail
(12/14/2004)
protectionist china... will chinese or u.s. companies lose out?
(3/15/2004)
skype... p2p telephony & a very cool company
(2/13/2004)
poor george glider is right
(2/9/2004)
it's not the deficit stupid!... tech is the primary driver for growth
(12/02/2003)
immature venture capital industry in asia (9/29/2003)
boom time memories... masayoshi son was the man
(7/1/2003)
Politics
south korea's recent idiotic policies against foreign direct investment
(09/09/2005)
my first op-ed
(11/30/2004)
100,000 protest against Bush for... what?
(11/23/2003)
Society
generalizations of east asians
(5/16/2004)
sports is the great equalizer and unifer
(4/20/2004)
defining wisdom... age is the lesser factor
(10/18/2003)
living together before marriage
(8/25/2003)
friendships, relationships, people in life... (7/7/2003)
sugar mommas
(6/13/2003)
need for laws and enforcement
(4/10/2003)
old shaq issue
(4/2/2003)
Religion
creationism & christmas
(12/23/2004)
the passion of the christ... misunderstood
(2/20/2004)
christian's view of homosexuality
(1/13/2004)
is man determined or free?
(8/18/2003)
destructive christianity
(5/3/2003)
Others
"Blah Blah Bernard Blah Blah" Changing to "Junto Boyz"... A New Direction
(4/20/2004)
art of asking questions
(9/18/2003)
ode to bacon
(8/13/2003)
big guys... eating stories iv
(7/27/2003)
big guys... eating stories i
(4/2/2003)
cnn
cnet
businessweek
economist
forbes
fortune
fast company
pe week wire
the deal
ecommerce times
ne asia online
pacific epoch
eweek
release 1.0
technology review
techweb
zdnet news
the american spectator
drudge report
foreign policy
frontpage
harvard political review
mother jones
national review
the new republic
the weekly standard
il conservative politics
the atlantic
the hill
roll call
george f. will
asianweek
financeasia
korea herald
the onion
cox & forkum cartoons
garage technology ventures
growthink research
entrepreneur.com
entrepreneur america
venture economics
venture reporter
vfinance.com
yahoo! small business
nationmaster
thomas, legislative info
american enterprise institute
brookings institute
carnegie endowment
cato institute
center for american progress
center for strategic & int'l studies
heritage foundation
hudson institute
national center for policy analysis
progress & freedom foundation
progressive policy institute
rand corporation
reason public policy institute
urban institute
columbia institute for tele-info
international justice mission
charles barkley's outrageous career
liquid generation
wikipedia
"You cannot go on explaining away things over forever or you will find that you have explained even explanation itself away. You cannot go on seeing through things forever because the whole point of seeing through something is to see something else through it." - C.S Lewis
December 11, 2005
"This telephone has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." - Western Union internal memo, 1876
December 4, 2005
"You cannot hope to build a better world without improving the individual. To that end each of us must work for his own improvement, and at the same time share a general responsibility for all humanity, our particular duty being to aid those to whom we think we can be most useful." - Marie Curie
November 27, 2005
"One cannot step into the same river twice." - Heratidus
November 20, 2005
"The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference and undernourishment." - Robert Maynard Hutchins
November 13, 2005
"We are moving away from the old idea of leadership -- leadership has less to do (now) with heroism. We don’t look for... unblemished omnipotent heroes, but leaders who are complex, dependent, changeable... We do not need one dominant authority structure telling all our inner voices to shut up..." - Walter Truett Anderson
November 6, 2005
"To know oneself is to know one’s [country]. It is also... paradoxically a form of exile from that world... to know oneself is, above all, to know what one lacks. It is to measure oneself against Truth, and not the other way around. The first product of self-knowledge is humility, and that virtue is not conspicuous in any national character." - Flannery O’Connor
October 30, 2005
"Men content themselves with the same words as other people use, as if the very sound necessarily carried the same meaning." - John Locke
October 23, 2005
"In order to thrive in a world of change and chaos, we will need to accept 'chaos' as an essential process by which natural systems, including organizations, renew and revitalize themselves." - Margaret Wheatley
October 16, 2004
"Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary." - Robert Louis Stevenson
October 9, 2004
"We will be better and braver if we engage and inquire than if we indulge in the idle fancy that we already know - or that it is of no use seeking to know what we do not know." - Plato
October 2, 2004
"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions." - Oliver W. Holmes
September 25, 2004
"What you learn intellectually lies in the shallow pools among the wrinkles of your brain. What you learn through the skin of experience sinks deep into your roots." - Hank Taft
September 18, 2004
"In commanding us to glorify him, God is inviting us to enjoy him." - C.S. Lewis
September 11, 2004
"A society is judged by how it treats its least desirable people." - Anonymous
September 4, 2004
"This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy. I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community and as long as I live it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can. I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work the more I live. I rejoice in life for its own sake. Life is no "brief candle" to me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for the moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to the future generations." - George Bernard Shaw
Yahoo! Directory
Vote for this Blog!
The Weblog Review
Wictory Wednesday Roll
Blogdom of God Roll
League of Reformed Bloggers Roll
ProLifeBlogs Roll
