1970’s Redux
Zbegniew Brzezinski’s in the NYTimes today, analyzing the offerings from Bush and Kerry on Iraq and making a lot of sense, a function he served under Jimmy Carter back in the days when the Arab-Israeli conflict started looking like there might be a lasting and hopeful turning point, i.e., previous to the assassination of Sadat. It’s all gotten a lot more complex since then, and while “stay the course” has been dissatisfying coming from George II, the prospect that that’s all that Kerry’s got to offer so far, irrespective of any improvements in America’s relations with its allies, has been similarly dismaying. As much as I believe that keeping Bush in office just so he can get us out of the mess he’s gotten us into is a counterproductive option, I also believe that Kerry’s going to have to come up with something very good indeed to be effective on this situation, and just being “someone else” isn’t enough. Brzezinski’s program - relieving the Palestinian-Israeli tension plus a commitment from Europe on Iraq plus a real effort on getting Iran to negotiate and back off going nuclear – sounds better than anything else I’ve heard so far. Maybe it’s just that it shows a more sweeping vision of engaging in the region than has been on offer previously, but isn’t that the kind of “changed world” problem-solving approach that’s called for these days? It’s fine for Bush to say everything’s different since 9/11, but he’s not doing anything newer than was done when the Ottomans threatened to overrun Europe. Kerry says he wants to be smarter in combating terrorism; here’s his chance.
25 October 2004
Expecting Results
Next week, we’ll be gathering in the upstairs room (shades of the Last Supper) at Bar Broadway to watch the returns. Crooked Timber’s pointed out a handy guide to the coverage to help keep the mood swings level. The returns will start coming in around lunch time, so everyone should be sure to have something to eat so blood-sugar levels don’t interfere with reason.
Next week, we’ll be gathering in the upstairs room (shades of the Last Supper) at Bar Broadway to watch the returns. Crooked Timber’s pointed out a handy guide to the coverage to help keep the mood swings level. The returns will start coming in around lunch time, so everyone should be sure to have something to eat so blood-sugar levels don’t interfere with reason.
22 October 2004
Less and Less to Drink
It’s been raining all week, and the Parramatta River has been up well over its banks overnight, and the smell of mud permeates the air. Up north, the Bellinger River has been up 8 metres, cutting father-in-law off from the rest of the state. For all the rain Sydney’s only seen enough fall in the catchments for a week’s more water than it had before. If the rainy season persists, I suppose we might yet see the next stage of water restrictions later than sooner, but I expect we’ll see them anyway just the same. I’m about ready for a couple of days’ break, even if I do recognize how much we need the wet. And with Australia coming in high on the list of countries with a large ecological footprint, we’re going to have to work very hard indeed to do more with less, or there will be little to work with at all.
It’s been raining all week, and the Parramatta River has been up well over its banks overnight, and the smell of mud permeates the air. Up north, the Bellinger River has been up 8 metres, cutting father-in-law off from the rest of the state. For all the rain Sydney’s only seen enough fall in the catchments for a week’s more water than it had before. If the rainy season persists, I suppose we might yet see the next stage of water restrictions later than sooner, but I expect we’ll see them anyway just the same. I’m about ready for a couple of days’ break, even if I do recognize how much we need the wet. And with Australia coming in high on the list of countries with a large ecological footprint, we’re going to have to work very hard indeed to do more with less, or there will be little to work with at all.
Who Won?
Thomas Friedman has it right, I think, to suggest that the biggest deciding factor in the Presidential election is whether voters can trust Kerry will command the protection of the United States and pursue effectively those who would harm us at home or abroad, as opposed to whether they are convinced Bush understands what he has undertaken and how badly he’s screwed it up so that he can undertake to repair the damage before it’s too late. Personally, I’m already sold on Kerry, but it didn’t take much effort on the candidate’s part. Bush has consistently demonstrated his faith-based doctrinarian approach to leadership, and that’s not what I look for in a leader. Change in circumstances sometimes requires reassessment and a corresponding change in method or direction, and from the beginning of the campaign season, that ability to reassess and adapt has been an essential criterion in selecting a candidate. There are other factors, of course, and I have not been immune to questions over whether Kerry, with his years in the Senate, would be more or less capable of functioning as an executive, among other things, than, for example, Howard Dean, whose role as a state Governor obviously fitted him with the experience required, just as it had with Clinton or, presumptively Bush (although that never turned out to be the case, the Texas executive branch being somewhat more like ceremonial in its powers). And as the campaign has progressed I’ve seen Kerry learning, developing, whereas I’ve only seen Bush become more and more strident, more firmly attached to denying any error or even so much as a misstep, growing ever more simplistic. For him it all boils down to being either “with him or against him,” a choice between salvation or damnation, but on the evidence, we’re damned either way if he gets in again. Selecting a Chief Executive isn’t a matter of belief, like choosing a religion, and while trusting in a “higher power” has given George W. the chance not to drink himself to death, it isn’t enough to run a country with either, just like it wasn’t enough for him to function as a businessman. Bush is a failed executive without a history of service to anything other than his own privilege. Kerry has used every privilege to pursue a career of service to the country, without shirking or complaint. There’s not much more I’d ask for in a President.
Thomas Friedman has it right, I think, to suggest that the biggest deciding factor in the Presidential election is whether voters can trust Kerry will command the protection of the United States and pursue effectively those who would harm us at home or abroad, as opposed to whether they are convinced Bush understands what he has undertaken and how badly he’s screwed it up so that he can undertake to repair the damage before it’s too late. Personally, I’m already sold on Kerry, but it didn’t take much effort on the candidate’s part. Bush has consistently demonstrated his faith-based doctrinarian approach to leadership, and that’s not what I look for in a leader. Change in circumstances sometimes requires reassessment and a corresponding change in method or direction, and from the beginning of the campaign season, that ability to reassess and adapt has been an essential criterion in selecting a candidate. There are other factors, of course, and I have not been immune to questions over whether Kerry, with his years in the Senate, would be more or less capable of functioning as an executive, among other things, than, for example, Howard Dean, whose role as a state Governor obviously fitted him with the experience required, just as it had with Clinton or, presumptively Bush (although that never turned out to be the case, the Texas executive branch being somewhat more like ceremonial in its powers). And as the campaign has progressed I’ve seen Kerry learning, developing, whereas I’ve only seen Bush become more and more strident, more firmly attached to denying any error or even so much as a misstep, growing ever more simplistic. For him it all boils down to being either “with him or against him,” a choice between salvation or damnation, but on the evidence, we’re damned either way if he gets in again. Selecting a Chief Executive isn’t a matter of belief, like choosing a religion, and while trusting in a “higher power” has given George W. the chance not to drink himself to death, it isn’t enough to run a country with either, just like it wasn’t enough for him to function as a businessman. Bush is a failed executive without a history of service to anything other than his own privilege. Kerry has used every privilege to pursue a career of service to the country, without shirking or complaint. There’s not much more I’d ask for in a President.
21 October 2004
Vote for Bush, or the Sox Will Win the World Series
Dick Cheney was on the stump again, scare-mongering: "John Kerry wants the Red Sox to win [the World Series]," he announced to a partisan crowd in St. Louis, where the Cardinals had already clinched the Central Division title. And this time, he may be right. O.k., I made up the quote stuff, but with all the fear-mongering going on, I wouldn't be surprised if he had said it. So St. Louis or the Astros will soon face the BoSox. This is not a good time not to have cable. Maybe if I get up early enough, the ABC or somebody will be playing highlights.
Dick Cheney was on the stump again, scare-mongering: "John Kerry wants the Red Sox to win [the World Series]," he announced to a partisan crowd in St. Louis, where the Cardinals had already clinched the Central Division title. And this time, he may be right. O.k., I made up the quote stuff, but with all the fear-mongering going on, I wouldn't be surprised if he had said it. So St. Louis or the Astros will soon face the BoSox. This is not a good time not to have cable. Maybe if I get up early enough, the ABC or somebody will be playing highlights.
Pollster Cage Match
Over at Simon World you can read a description of a talk given by John Zogby in Hong Kong regarding his polling company's analysis of the U.S. election, including his opinion on Gallup's results, which he considers as being completely inaccurate just on their face. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Florida are the key states, and Zogby pegs the race as Kerry's to lose, with no net effect expected from Nader. How reassuring.
Over at Simon World you can read a description of a talk given by John Zogby in Hong Kong regarding his polling company's analysis of the U.S. election, including his opinion on Gallup's results, which he considers as being completely inaccurate just on their face. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Florida are the key states, and Zogby pegs the race as Kerry's to lose, with no net effect expected from Nader. How reassuring.
20 October 2004
A Heartbeat Away
I have yet to see any speculation on post-second term Republican candidacy, but it occurs to me to wonder what the GOP might already be considering regarding Dick Cheney. He’ll be 67 in 2008, 71 by the time his [first] term would be up, and his heart’s pretty dodgy, which could put him out of the running, but the usual turn of events has been for the VP to run following the second term. So what about Dick? Does the undisclosed location have special rejuvenation equipment keeping him fresh for his big campaign, or will they chance a run-off, potentially leaving a weaker candidate than an incumbent VP to face whomever the Democrats field then? Perhaps they don’t care, figuring it’ll be Hillary Clinton, and nobody’d vote for her anyway because she’s still that polarizing. Or will Cheney resign to “be with his family” two years down the line so that Bush can put in a more viable successor? Cheney’s agenda has never seemed to include a run for the Presidency, and even recently he’s expressed no desire for the job, although that could just be disingenuousness. He does fit the Republican bill, outside of the fundamentalism of the incumbent’s support base, insofar as he’s got big-business credentials and an extremist tendency towards laissez-faire micro-economics. Is there anything in the Constitution about not electing a brain in a jar?
I have yet to see any speculation on post-second term Republican candidacy, but it occurs to me to wonder what the GOP might already be considering regarding Dick Cheney. He’ll be 67 in 2008, 71 by the time his [first] term would be up, and his heart’s pretty dodgy, which could put him out of the running, but the usual turn of events has been for the VP to run following the second term. So what about Dick? Does the undisclosed location have special rejuvenation equipment keeping him fresh for his big campaign, or will they chance a run-off, potentially leaving a weaker candidate than an incumbent VP to face whomever the Democrats field then? Perhaps they don’t care, figuring it’ll be Hillary Clinton, and nobody’d vote for her anyway because she’s still that polarizing. Or will Cheney resign to “be with his family” two years down the line so that Bush can put in a more viable successor? Cheney’s agenda has never seemed to include a run for the Presidency, and even recently he’s expressed no desire for the job, although that could just be disingenuousness. He does fit the Republican bill, outside of the fundamentalism of the incumbent’s support base, insofar as he’s got big-business credentials and an extremist tendency towards laissez-faire micro-economics. Is there anything in the Constitution about not electing a brain in a jar?
15 October 2004
Third Way
I’ve given Third-Party politics some thought lately, although only in reference to the Australian election, but this isn’t the year to go down that path, whether here or at home, and I think there are some here who now regret their choice somewhat. The Counsellor has some interesting reflections on 1980 that confirm me in my convictions since then. John Anderson, for reasons I cannot recall any longer, was also my - first and only - foray into Third Party politics. Carter, remembered as "history's greatest monster" by the neo-cons (to geek from the Simpsons), taught America a lot, pretty much all of which was forever forgotten in the twelve years of Reagan-Bush. Clinton made us feel hopeful and generous again, but there was complacency, too, and we're suffering now from a return to those self-righteous days of the 80's led by a man who doesn't understand the philosophies then at work let alone the policies that were implemented, but desperately wants to see them back again to undo what he does believe in: his father's failure.
I don’t see 41 as a failure per se, but he wasn’t the charismatic leader Ronnie was. He was, however, at least in his approach, more Presidential than Reagan (and certainly more so than W). Clinton’s arrival was just in time, and his departure rendered all the more painful by Gore’s less-than-impressive performance in the 2000 election. The Third Party factor clinched Bush II’s ability to steal the result, much the way Anderson’s candidacy affected the outcome in 1980: just enough.
While Ralph Nader is pretty much now relegated to footnote status and unlikely to affect voting patterns significantly enough to turn any state’s result, we also have the “troubled times” factor at work. As happened here, there will be a significant part of the population who will vote from the principle that the man who got us into the war needs to be the one to get us out, too. There will also be those who are insufficiently principled to do the hard thing, to vote out Bush, because they’d have to think about more than themselves. These latter people will either not vote at all or will vote to re-elect. These are the people who need to be taken by the elbow, the collar, the ear and propelled to the booth with the admonitions necessary to make them act and the information to act upon. Anyone who is not a committed right-wing reactionary is potentially susceptible to argument in favor of putting Kerry in office. If you know one, be gentle but be persuasive: get out the vote.
Update: O.k., so it's not safe to count Nader out just yet. The college campus venues Nader mainly appears at give him what might be a very effective bully pulpit among a population his candidacy would appeal to, and who aren't necessarily getting picked up in polls. He's still a footnote.
I’ve given Third-Party politics some thought lately, although only in reference to the Australian election, but this isn’t the year to go down that path, whether here or at home, and I think there are some here who now regret their choice somewhat. The Counsellor has some interesting reflections on 1980 that confirm me in my convictions since then. John Anderson, for reasons I cannot recall any longer, was also my - first and only - foray into Third Party politics. Carter, remembered as "history's greatest monster" by the neo-cons (to geek from the Simpsons), taught America a lot, pretty much all of which was forever forgotten in the twelve years of Reagan-Bush. Clinton made us feel hopeful and generous again, but there was complacency, too, and we're suffering now from a return to those self-righteous days of the 80's led by a man who doesn't understand the philosophies then at work let alone the policies that were implemented, but desperately wants to see them back again to undo what he does believe in: his father's failure.
I don’t see 41 as a failure per se, but he wasn’t the charismatic leader Ronnie was. He was, however, at least in his approach, more Presidential than Reagan (and certainly more so than W). Clinton’s arrival was just in time, and his departure rendered all the more painful by Gore’s less-than-impressive performance in the 2000 election. The Third Party factor clinched Bush II’s ability to steal the result, much the way Anderson’s candidacy affected the outcome in 1980: just enough.
While Ralph Nader is pretty much now relegated to footnote status and unlikely to affect voting patterns significantly enough to turn any state’s result, we also have the “troubled times” factor at work. As happened here, there will be a significant part of the population who will vote from the principle that the man who got us into the war needs to be the one to get us out, too. There will also be those who are insufficiently principled to do the hard thing, to vote out Bush, because they’d have to think about more than themselves. These latter people will either not vote at all or will vote to re-elect. These are the people who need to be taken by the elbow, the collar, the ear and propelled to the booth with the admonitions necessary to make them act and the information to act upon. Anyone who is not a committed right-wing reactionary is potentially susceptible to argument in favor of putting Kerry in office. If you know one, be gentle but be persuasive: get out the vote.
Update: O.k., so it's not safe to count Nader out just yet. The college campus venues Nader mainly appears at give him what might be a very effective bully pulpit among a population his candidacy would appeal to, and who aren't necessarily getting picked up in polls. He's still a footnote.
11 October 2004
10 October 2004
Alas, Poor Latham
With all our friends gathered 'round to watch the returns on the ABC, Labor lost its bid to take over government for the next three years, and Howard got back in office, and with a noticable addition of seats, if just to salt the ALP's wounds. While I'm disappointed, I'm not really surprised, because the pundits, including the bookies, have been pegging the Coalition to win even despite the various swings in the poll results, which have gone either way from week to week over the campaign. Howard ran his campaign well, choosing to stress issues designed to trigger fear in the electorate, whether fear of terrorists, fear over Mark Latham's relative inexperience as a front-bencher, or fear of an interest rate rise. Once again, it appears that - if not lies - untruths have won the day. In the previous election, lies that illegal immigrants were going to flood the country and were so unprincipled as to throw their children overboard and therefore unworthy of Australian compassion, drove the ballots in favor of the Liberal/National Party Coalition. This time, the electorate believed that extraordinary interest rates would return upon Mark Latham becoming Prime Minister (even though this is controlled by the independent Reserve Bank), or that Latham's having been in Parliament for only a relative short time would prove him incompetent, or that the Iraq adventure was a more valid choice than developing relationships with southeast Asian neighbors.
Well, we had a lovely party just the same: food, drink, good friends and new. Photos can been seen at Flickr. (You known the drill: click on the small images to view them larger. Notes have been added, so mouse over the faces in the group shot for additional commentary.) Next month's party up at Bar Broadway (for the other big election this year, not to slight the Afghans) will hopefully have a better outcome. I'm sure the crowd will be equally congenial.
With all our friends gathered 'round to watch the returns on the ABC, Labor lost its bid to take over government for the next three years, and Howard got back in office, and with a noticable addition of seats, if just to salt the ALP's wounds. While I'm disappointed, I'm not really surprised, because the pundits, including the bookies, have been pegging the Coalition to win even despite the various swings in the poll results, which have gone either way from week to week over the campaign. Howard ran his campaign well, choosing to stress issues designed to trigger fear in the electorate, whether fear of terrorists, fear over Mark Latham's relative inexperience as a front-bencher, or fear of an interest rate rise. Once again, it appears that - if not lies - untruths have won the day. In the previous election, lies that illegal immigrants were going to flood the country and were so unprincipled as to throw their children overboard and therefore unworthy of Australian compassion, drove the ballots in favor of the Liberal/National Party Coalition. This time, the electorate believed that extraordinary interest rates would return upon Mark Latham becoming Prime Minister (even though this is controlled by the independent Reserve Bank), or that Latham's having been in Parliament for only a relative short time would prove him incompetent, or that the Iraq adventure was a more valid choice than developing relationships with southeast Asian neighbors.
Well, we had a lovely party just the same: food, drink, good friends and new. Photos can been seen at Flickr. (You known the drill: click on the small images to view them larger. Notes have been added, so mouse over the faces in the group shot for additional commentary.) Next month's party up at Bar Broadway (for the other big election this year, not to slight the Afghans) will hopefully have a better outcome. I'm sure the crowd will be equally congenial.
08 October 2004
06 October 2004
Veep Meet
The Cheney-Edwards debate doesn't read quite as well as Bush-Kerry. Edwards seemed to spend more time reiterating Kerry's lines from Thursday than Cheney did with Bush's, but that's not much of a surprise given George II's abysmal performance. I'll probably miss the replay at next Tuesday's Democrats Abroad meeting (an enlightening experience on last week's match, as I previously mentioned), but maybe it doesn't really matter. Cheney was only occassionally effective, but Edwards, I think, managed to deliver his campaign's core messages, so even if he didn't land any devastating blows against the Bush administration's record, he did leave the victor overall. I'm looking forward to the news reports here, if just to see if this round helps lift the coverage from its present doldrums.
The Cheney-Edwards debate doesn't read quite as well as Bush-Kerry. Edwards seemed to spend more time reiterating Kerry's lines from Thursday than Cheney did with Bush's, but that's not much of a surprise given George II's abysmal performance. I'll probably miss the replay at next Tuesday's Democrats Abroad meeting (an enlightening experience on last week's match, as I previously mentioned), but maybe it doesn't really matter. Cheney was only occassionally effective, but Edwards, I think, managed to deliver his campaign's core messages, so even if he didn't land any devastating blows against the Bush administration's record, he did leave the victor overall. I'm looking forward to the news reports here, if just to see if this round helps lift the coverage from its present doldrums.
Rain
Now that spring has arrived, so has more rain. Although many millimetres fell over last Thursday and Friday, the cachements only saw an increase of about 1%, and that was used up in a day. The overflow in the picture above is the Parramatta River, about 27 kilometres west of the harbour, so none of this runoff is going anywhere useful to anything or anyone other than the river itself and the ducks and eels therein.
Now that spring has arrived, so has more rain. Although many millimetres fell over last Thursday and Friday, the cachements only saw an increase of about 1%, and that was used up in a day. The overflow in the picture above is the Parramatta River, about 27 kilometres west of the harbour, so none of this runoff is going anywhere useful to anything or anyone other than the river itself and the ducks and eels therein.
Win, Place, Show
Thanks to Scott’s correction, I saw a replay of the first debate last night (and got my t-shirt), and I cannot believe that anyone could have pegged this as a tie, let alone given it to Bush. I was reminded of nothing so much as of one of the Grimm Brothers’ fairy tales, recontextualized as the American political promise that “anyone can grow up to be President.” Remember the one about the two little girls, one of whom is blessed for her kindness and good manners to have every word she speaks manifest in gold coins and jewels, while the other’s rudeness is punished so that she spits snakes and toads? Kerry & Bush represent a similar polarity of ability and manner. I almost feel sorry for George II, stumbling over the lumpy frogs, having to swallow back the hairy spiders, while Kerry’s every utterance is lucid and frank: a gold sovereign, coin of the realm. I felt real hope for the campaign and for the country. Honestly, Kerry hardly needed to show up for this; George wiped the floor with himself.
Thanks to Scott’s correction, I saw a replay of the first debate last night (and got my t-shirt), and I cannot believe that anyone could have pegged this as a tie, let alone given it to Bush. I was reminded of nothing so much as of one of the Grimm Brothers’ fairy tales, recontextualized as the American political promise that “anyone can grow up to be President.” Remember the one about the two little girls, one of whom is blessed for her kindness and good manners to have every word she speaks manifest in gold coins and jewels, while the other’s rudeness is punished so that she spits snakes and toads? Kerry & Bush represent a similar polarity of ability and manner. I almost feel sorry for George II, stumbling over the lumpy frogs, having to swallow back the hairy spiders, while Kerry’s every utterance is lucid and frank: a gold sovereign, coin of the realm. I felt real hope for the campaign and for the country. Honestly, Kerry hardly needed to show up for this; George wiped the floor with himself.
05 October 2004
Annals of Yellow Journalism
Remember that Fox News report post-debate of Kerry making various "metrosexual" remarks? It was false, of course, and immediately the question was raised: what has Fox done about it? Nothing. They told the reporter he'd been bad, and sent him back to work covering the campaign. Or they told him to be more realistic when he reports lies, and sent him back to work. Either way, he's still covering Murdoch's bid to see George II re-elected.
Remember that Fox News report post-debate of Kerry making various "metrosexual" remarks? It was false, of course, and immediately the question was raised: what has Fox done about it? Nothing. They told the reporter he'd been bad, and sent him back to work covering the campaign. Or they told him to be more realistic when he reports lies, and sent him back to work. Either way, he's still covering Murdoch's bid to see George II re-elected.
Mining the Atlas
Via the redoubtable Metafilter, multimap allows you to obtain a street map of pretty much anywhere, including my very own neighbourhood [sic]. Of course, the service for Great Britain, where the website originates, includes an even more spectacular feature, one I truly hope will encompass more of the world as time goes on: that is, aerial photos with a map overlay. So cool it hurts.
Via the redoubtable Metafilter, multimap allows you to obtain a street map of pretty much anywhere, including my very own neighbourhood [sic]. Of course, the service for Great Britain, where the website originates, includes an even more spectacular feature, one I truly hope will encompass more of the world as time goes on: that is, aerial photos with a map overlay. So cool it hurts.
Wired for Sound
Is it possible that George II had a prompter during the debate, feeding him his lines? Or is this a clever photoshop job? Nothing on Snopes so far.
Is it possible that George II had a prompter during the debate, feeding him his lines? Or is this a clever photoshop job? Nothing on Snopes so far.
Therapy & Thrash
Because of the long weekend, M. & I managed to fit in seeing Metallica: Some Kind of Monster, and while I’ve never been remotely a fan of the genre in which this band operates, I have to admit my admiration for the group and its individual members after seeing this film. Although it starts after their therapy sessions have already begun, the movie begins in the early days of the St. Anger recording sessions, so you’re given the opportunity to see the band at pretty much its most dysfunctional. Despite their problems, they’re all really quite likeable, and they only get better as they come to terms with their personal, professional, and creative problems. I almost came away thinking of stopping in a record store to get a copy of their record (but I could download it, right? Nah.).
Because of the long weekend, M. & I managed to fit in seeing Metallica: Some Kind of Monster, and while I’ve never been remotely a fan of the genre in which this band operates, I have to admit my admiration for the group and its individual members after seeing this film. Although it starts after their therapy sessions have already begun, the movie begins in the early days of the St. Anger recording sessions, so you’re given the opportunity to see the band at pretty much its most dysfunctional. Despite their problems, they’re all really quite likeable, and they only get better as they come to terms with their personal, professional, and creative problems. I almost came away thinking of stopping in a record store to get a copy of their record (but I could download it, right? Nah.).
Situational Ethics
What is it about being the CEO of a large company that leads people into situations like Craig Conway’s? fired from PeopleSoft (but still on the board of directors) because of “misleading statements” that could have gotten his company into more trouble than it already faced from Oracle, the takeover conflagration he wanted to douse has just gotten worse. It’s all a game of manipulating the stock price, which is exactly what gets most CEO’s into trouble, and it’s been going on for a very long time now, revealing the power of the investment banks and brokerage houses over how businesses are run. But look, if you’re not paying your executives with options, you don’t need a constantly rising stock price. Slow, steady growth is what the stock market is all about: long-term investment; and that’s good for the company itself in the first place. Business isn’t about how much your paper’s worth, but how much your product is worth. PeopleSoft’s product line is arguably the best of its kind. Oracle and SAP are notoriously harder to implement and maintain. Now PeopleSoft appears to need a third party to step in and buy them out in order to avoid a hostile merger with Oracle. This puts a lot of people in jeopardy: customers and employees alike. And all because Conway “misspoke.”
What is it about being the CEO of a large company that leads people into situations like Craig Conway’s? fired from PeopleSoft (but still on the board of directors) because of “misleading statements” that could have gotten his company into more trouble than it already faced from Oracle, the takeover conflagration he wanted to douse has just gotten worse. It’s all a game of manipulating the stock price, which is exactly what gets most CEO’s into trouble, and it’s been going on for a very long time now, revealing the power of the investment banks and brokerage houses over how businesses are run. But look, if you’re not paying your executives with options, you don’t need a constantly rising stock price. Slow, steady growth is what the stock market is all about: long-term investment; and that’s good for the company itself in the first place. Business isn’t about how much your paper’s worth, but how much your product is worth. PeopleSoft’s product line is arguably the best of its kind. Oracle and SAP are notoriously harder to implement and maintain. Now PeopleSoft appears to need a third party to step in and buy them out in order to avoid a hostile merger with Oracle. This puts a lot of people in jeopardy: customers and employees alike. And all because Conway “misspoke.”
03 October 2004
Round 1
Because I don't get home before 6 and I don't have cable (and because I couldn't make it to the special Democrats Abroad Meetup this weekend), I never saw any of the Presidential debate last week. Instead, I've had to rely on a transcript from the NY Times. As I read through 25 A4 pages (that's 8 1/2 x 11 to you Americans), I was at first dismayed. Although Kerry was conveying his points well, so was Bush. Even without body language and tone of voice, however, it became increasingly clear that as the debate wore on Bush was losing steam. His phrasing became more argumentative, more repetitious, and he increasingly began stammering and trying to interpolate himself the instant Kerry finished speaking, even before Jim Lehrer could signal him to begin his rejoinders. Bush's desperation was plain, so I'm glad to say Kerry won that debate well. News reports here, however, are much less sanguine about his outing, suggesting Kerry didn't do well, and that Bush looks to move pretty easily still back into the White House. I'm surprised by this, but they're also touting Howard's chances to re-occupy the Lodge (and Kirribilli House; the PM gets two homes) over Latham's odds of pulling an upset. This is a strange political bias, I think, given that the papers I mainly read here I've generally thought to be pretty small-L liberal. Perhaps the mood of the populace, that of being overwhelmed by uncertainty in the world and so preferring the easy choice of the incumbent, also infects the media.
Because I don't get home before 6 and I don't have cable (and because I couldn't make it to the special Democrats Abroad Meetup this weekend), I never saw any of the Presidential debate last week. Instead, I've had to rely on a transcript from the NY Times. As I read through 25 A4 pages (that's 8 1/2 x 11 to you Americans), I was at first dismayed. Although Kerry was conveying his points well, so was Bush. Even without body language and tone of voice, however, it became increasingly clear that as the debate wore on Bush was losing steam. His phrasing became more argumentative, more repetitious, and he increasingly began stammering and trying to interpolate himself the instant Kerry finished speaking, even before Jim Lehrer could signal him to begin his rejoinders. Bush's desperation was plain, so I'm glad to say Kerry won that debate well. News reports here, however, are much less sanguine about his outing, suggesting Kerry didn't do well, and that Bush looks to move pretty easily still back into the White House. I'm surprised by this, but they're also touting Howard's chances to re-occupy the Lodge (and Kirribilli House; the PM gets two homes) over Latham's odds of pulling an upset. This is a strange political bias, I think, given that the papers I mainly read here I've generally thought to be pretty small-L liberal. Perhaps the mood of the populace, that of being overwhelmed by uncertainty in the world and so preferring the easy choice of the incumbent, also infects the media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
