Thursday, November 20, 2008

$21 billion for the executives

If you read my post from 3 days ago..... well, here are the news from the Wall Street Journal today:
"120 public companies in such sectors as banking, mortgage finance, student lending, stock brokerage and home building, showed that top executives and directors of the firms cashed out a total of more than $21 billion during the period."
So.... again.... write to your congressman and have those executives disgorged from those billions of dollars!

Monday, November 17, 2008

Is the Media so stupid?

Here's a headline from today, which is in tune with all the others on the same subject:
"Goldman Chiefs Give Up Bonuses
Seven Top Executives to Forgo Millions in 2008; Move Could Pressure Other Firms"


In other words, it's OK that the Chairman of the Board of Goldman Sachs last year alone took home $68 million in compensation, as long as this year he'll take only $600,000!

This is one example of what prompted my outrage as expressed in my previous post.

Now imagine all the other executives' compensation in the previous years that led to the disaster that we are seeing now. Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Citibank, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Countrywide, Fannie and Freddie... and the list goes on and on. And not just the financials, but also the automakers. I am sure that all their executives' compensation would add past the billion dollar figure. Do you really think that taking less compensation this year is a way to redeem themselves for their past sins? I don't think so. All those guys need to be disgorged from their past years earnings. After all, those were compensations based on fictitious gains for their customers.

Simply not correct that we are bailing out the failing companies, while those guys are keeping their millions. Write your congressmen - ask them to require that those executives be disgorged from the undeserved compensation. 

Sunday, November 16, 2008

What about the rest of us?

I am trying to understand the social contract that I am part of.

The economy is in a very poor shape, and the media and politicians keep talking about bailout plans to rescue hundreds of companies and millions of individuals.

But what about the other millions of companies and individuals who for years have worked in a very responsible way? Those who, as head of their companies had the leadership skills to run their businesses watching for the interest of all their stakeholders instead of the interest of just a few of them? Those who, as individuals, duly paid their taxes and ran their lives in a responsible way, not committing to more than they could afford?

Being part of this group, I feel cheated and fooled. Because now the government is counting on us to rescue the irresponsible ones. We are the ones to rescue those who bought a house bigger than they could afford. We are the ones to rescue those corporations whose executives and thousands of managers took home millions of dollars in the last years, while digging big holes that would swallow their once wealthy companies.

Is this the social contract that I am part of?

If you feel that you are part of "the rest of us", please share this message with others whom you know are part of "the rest of us".

Sunday, November 9, 2008

In Vino Veritas

This is a 2000 years old Latin saying that I am sure most of you are familiar with: "In wine lies the truth".

Yesterday, the Times of London published a story based on a YouTube clip by a Dutch journalist who caught a drunken British journalist making several confessions on tape.



Classical example of "in vino veritas".

This video brought memories of my time as a journalist in Israel, right after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, when I was a stringer for a couple of journalists from the widely respected Brazilian newspaper O Estado de São Paulo - first Nelson Santos, and later Mario Chimanovitch.

Santos was a very knowledgeable journalist who had been covering Israel and the Middle East conflict for many years, and who had been asked to write for that newspaper under a pseudonym, as he also wrote for Jornal do Brasil in Rio de Janeiro under his real name, Nahum Sirotsky.
After the 1973 war Israel's fortunes changed, and the same happened to many people, including some journalists. Nahum was "gently" removed from his assignments in both Brazilian newspapers, and O Estado de São Paulo started looking for a replacement. Mario Chimanovitch was chosen. The story of how this happened is interesting: Mario was that newspaper's correspondent in the remote Pantanal area (the mid-west swamp region of Brazil). The editor-in-chief - Julio Mesquita - was on vacation in that area, and Mario was his host. As Mario recounted to me later, he was in a boat with Mesquita, when he was offered the job to replace Nelson in Israel. This was around April/May 1974.

In July of that year I came home to Tel Aviv, back from a trip to Brazil, and found a note at my door: "I am the new correspondent of O Estado de São Paulo in Israel, and I need your help. Please call me asap. Mario".

Next day I met Mario, who asked me to become his stringer as he knew nothing about Israel, the Middle East, and the only language he spoke other than Portuguese, was a broken French. And, yes, he also told me that he was a Marxist. I thought to myself that this was clearly a situation where I could be of help.
I worked for Mario for just a short period. I could not withstand the fact that he was what we called "a scissors journalist", an expression that later was replaced by "a cut and paste journalist" as we can see in the YouTube video mentioned at the beginning of this story.
As Mario would finish cutting and pasting his story (based on French left-wing newspapers, to match his ideology and the only language he new), he would meet me so that I would review, offer my suggestions (seldom accepted because it was not in line with his ideology) and make it factually correct. I recall when one night I came home about 1 AM, and found a note: "I could not find you, here is the article I already sent". After I read it and noticed some blatant mistakes, I called him and told him to call the newspaper asking them to wait because a revised copy would be sent. We then met at the UPI office, where we used to telex the article to the newspaper - the article was corrected and sent.
Shortly after I quit my work for him.

Back to the drunken journalist; if you see the tape, you will not only notice that "cut and paste" side of journalism (which I believe is more prevalent than you may think) but also, and perhaps more importantly, the following statement: "the readers of the Birmingham Mail are going to get my version of history".

A journalist's opinion is not to be confused with a journalist's "version of history". Unfortunately, throughout the years, from before 1973, to 2008 and years to come, many versions of history have and will been presented under the guise of "opinion", and many factual reports have been and will be distorted so that the journalist can disseminate his/her version of history.

It is incumbent that we as readers, be as informed as we can, and read from as many sources as we can, so that we can distinguish between facts and one individual's version of history. And then, reach our own conclusion on how history was made.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

My Last Appeal

Election day is just around the corner, and this is my last appeal to friends, some of which praise me for being open minded, but who have a hard time showing the same degree of open mindedness.

We are facing one of the most important presidential elections in U.S. history. It is not just important due to the political, social, economic and security circumstances that we are living, but also because one of the candidates is the front runner not by virtue of what he has demonstrated in the past, but rather because of his exceptional debate and rhetoric persuasion capabilities, allied to a $750 million war chest, an extremely well run marketing campaign, but more importantly, a phenomenal thirst for change by all of us, and a phenomenal thirst of power by the leaders of the Democratic Party.

Yes, we need change. Yes, we need a leader that will take us to the correct direction (notice that I avoided the words "right direction", so that there is no pun intended). But in the process of moving towards this change that we all need, some of us are at risk of making a questionable decision. A decision that is driven not by who the candidate is, but driven by what we want him to be, by what we need him to be. This is the danger of the situation that we are living.

If we remove ourselves from the "want" and the "need", and try to make an objective verification of the facts, I believe we have enough elements to make us concerned about Obama's character. From his sitting at the benches of the Trinity Church for over 20 years, to his remarks to Ali Abunimah: "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front", and going through the overwhelming number of times that he voted "Present" at the legislature, failing to show his true positions. Are we willing to see what he means by "when things calm down I can be more upfront" not just in regard to Israel, but in all other national and international issues?

There are many, many other points that I could raise about his character, but I will mention one gesture that he could have made this past month: having received a record $150 million for his campaign in September, he could easily say "I am taking $100 million and donating to charities". Instead, he bought 30 minutes of network time. Do you really think that those 30 minutes were essential to reassure his potential victory?

This is my last appeal to you: I take pride of the fact that I am independent. Over the course of the years since I became a US citizen, I always voted according to my conscience, and never straight for a party. The same happened during this election, as I have already cast my ballot and voted for both republicans and democrats. Please open your minds as well and try to see the man, beyond of what we "want" and what we "need" him to be. And then, make a decision to vote for someone who may not be the ideal one, who may have his flaws as we all do. But whose agenda is clear and whose character is well known.

I humbly ask you to vote for McCain.

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Bob Barr for President?!?!!

OK... so I guess that Bob Barr's "successful" participation in Borat's movie was a big enough incentive for him to launch his candidacy for President of the United States. Where is he exposing himself to more ridicule? During his appearance in the movie, or by launching his candidacy? Scroll down to vote in the poll below. (By the way, I suggest he pick Borat as his spokesperson).
For those who want to remember his memorable appearance at the movie, here it is:

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

2010 - An Electric Car Odissey

The year 2010 is packed with promises in the field of alternative fuel, more specifically - plug-in cars.

The most exciting promises seem to come from alternative groups, with names such as "Think Global" and "Project Better Place".

Think Global, a Norwegian based company funded among others by Rockport Capital Partners, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Biers (early investors in Google, AOL, and Amazon.com to name a few) and General Electric, is planning to introduce their cars in the US market by the end of 2009. Price tag: about $25,000 and range per charge 110 miles.

Project Better Place, an Israeli based partnership that includes the Government of Israel, Nissan and Renault, led by the visionary entrepreneur Shai Agassi (former President of Products and Technology at SAP AG) presented its working prototype this Sunday in Israel, and is planning to have "large numbers of the fully electric prototype in the streets of Israel at the end of 2010". The price that Israelis will have to pay for the car his yet to be determined, but it looks like it will be in the range of their current sedans, between $25,000-$40,000.

The Project was also launched in Denmark this past March, in partnership Danish company DONG Energy, planning to have the cars available for the public in early 2011. A fully charged battery will have a range of 125 miles.

One can only expect that if between now and 2010 these two projects prove to be in the right direction, we will be seeing massive investments so that larger markets can be targeted.

2010 is also the year when when Toyota and GM with their planned plug-in hybrid cars, Prius and Volt respectively, are preparing to hit the US market. Ford is working on their Escape plug-in hybrid but no date has been set for its planned launch. I am sure that competition will accelerate Ford's plans.

History shows that times of crisis lead to technology breakthroughs. The truth, however, is that this technology has been available for quite a while already. The current oil crisis is just making those technologies resurface as worthy of attention. If not by our government acting more firmly to alleviate the oil crisis, clearly by a consumer driven market.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Food and fuel: Brazil breaks new records

Earlier this year Brazil announced that 85% of the new cars sold in 2007 in that country were flex-fuel. That brought the total number of flex-fuel cars in Brazilian roads to over 50%. Last month, the Brazilian Association of Car Dealers issued its March 08 sales numbers: sales of flex-fuel cars increased by 26.7% compared to the same month last year.

Of course, in order to support this great demand of flex-fuel cars, there must be a high-volume production of ethanol. Not just that, but an increasing volume land used for sugar-cane production. Indeed, this is what happened: consumption of ethanol increased from about 3.5 billion gallons in 2006 to 4.4 billion gallons in 2007. The projected volume for 2008 is 6.4 billion, with exports of ethanol decreasing due to increased internal demand.

Is all this coming at the expense of food production? That's not what the numbers say in Brazil. The figures just released today show that Brazil is moving towards a record-breaking year in crops production, with a 7.8% increase over last year, propelled not just by soybean and corn, but also rice, beans and wheat.

Sugar-cane production in Brazil takes up only about 1% of the total arable land in the country, comprised of close to 750 million acres. It is worth noting that about 17% of this total is "land in rest" to restore fertility for crop production.

So, there's plenty of room for both land for food and land for fuel. When asked last week about the world food crisis, the Brazilian President Lula said: "of course this is bad, because there's a lot of hungry people, but I think it's good news for Brazil, because we can plant and export more food".

Now that it is clear that land for fuel has nothing to do with the food crisis, our leaders need to follow Brazil's example, as it can have a huge impact in in world's politics and economy:

a) By increasing the production of flex-fuel cars, demand for gasoline should decrease, and therefore oil prices should decrease;
b) Oil will stop being a strategic commodity, and therefore the political clout of oil-rich countries should decrease, leading to greater geo-political stability;
c) With oil prices going down, world economy can only gain, as a major component of overall production and transportation costs is energy

Brazil has a long history with ethanol - over 30 years - and during this period we certainly saw the country reaching a new status in world's economy. This should tell us something.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Who's to blame for their misery?

If one looks at the above headline, another important piece of this news will be missing: the attack happened at the Nahal Oz crossing. Why is this so important?


This is a continuation of the self-inflicting misery that the Palestinians bring upon themselves, and which I referred to in a previous posting.

On the same note, it is worthwhile reading The Gaza Prison Camp, by Nonie Darwish, published in the Huffington Post last month.




Friday, March 28, 2008

Will the politically correct wake up?

Fitna is a film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV) in the Dutch parliament. The movie offers his views on Islam and the Qur'an. The film's title comes from the Arabic word fitna which is used to describe "disagreement and division among people", or a "test of faith in times of trial". The movie was released to the Internet on 27 March 2008.

The first version from LiveLeak was removed Friday afternoon after death threats, as you can see from the message that will follow. Google and YouTube, later decided to post the video, which I am sharing below:

LiveLeak version that was removed:



FITNA full feature:

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Obama - is he genuine?

One of my favorite authors is Malcolm Gladwell. He wrote Blink and The Tipping Point, and interestingly enough, there is much to learn about Obama’s presidential campaign under the light of these two books.

In fact, I would be very much interested in finding out Gladwell’s opinion of Obama.

Given that I browsed the internet trying to find anything on that regard and was not successful, I will share with you my “Blink” on Obama.

Is Barak Obama genuine, or is he telling us what we want to hear? Is he a person of principles, or is he someone that will accommodate his principles according to the direction of the wind?

A few weeks ago, I was watching TV, and prior to the primaries in Texas, a reporter interviewed a citizen who said something quite striking: “Obama is now more that a candidate. Obama is a movement.” In other words, Obama’s campaign may have reached the “tipping point,” to use Gladwell’s idea as explained in his book. For the candidate himself, this is certainly excellent, as movements have a lot of people that adhere to it driven by its “dragging forces” which are the catching phrases and opinion makers that have joined it. For the public, however, it could be either good or bad, depending on how close his electoral discourse will match his deeds, if elected.

And here is where I am concerned.

I am concerned because after watching several debates, and following everything that is going on around him, my inner feeling is not good. My “Blink” on Obama, tells me that I cannot trust him.

This week we had a very telling situation: a couple of videos by his pastor were released. I must confess that I have hardly seen a preaching more hateful, divisive and racist. For those who haven’t seen these videos, I am posting them at the bottom of this piece.

As it has been widely mentioned, this is the pastor that Obama has been following for 20 years. This is the pastor who married him and mentored him. Pressed to give his opinion on these videos, Obama said he’s like “an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with.”

But saying the above about Rev. Wright was not enough, and so, Obama was pressed to reject Wright’s hateful discourses, which Obama did, a few days after this polemics started. And the headlines went like this:


Moreover, Wright, who left his church pulpit to become Obama’s advisor, ended up leaving this advisory position this Friday:


But these are my questions: why in the first place was Wright accepted as Obama’s campaign advisor if his divisive views were nothing new? Why would Obama stay member of a church that has as its leader such a preacher of hate? Why did it take a few days for Obama to be more vehement on his criticism to Wright, and still did not reject Wright himself, but just the things that he “[doesn’t] always agree with”?

Is Obama a principled man or is he saying what we want to hear, and at times saying what he’s been pressed to say?

Let’s look at this transcript from his debate with Hillary Clinton, regarding Farrakhan’s endorsement of Obama:

TIM RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?


OBAMA
: Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy….You know, I -- you know, I -- I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.

HILLARY CLINTON: There is a difference between denouncing and rejecting.


OBAMA
: I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There is no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. If the word reject Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word denounce, I'm happy to concede the point. I would reject and denounce.


In the above transcript it becomes clear Obama's "three-step conversion" from accepting Farrakhan's support, to rejecting it: 
- first "I can't say that he can't say that I am a good guy"
- then "I denounce his past statements"
- finally OK, "if Hillary feels that the word reject is stronger, then I denounce and reject"

So, is this rejection really convincing? You judge.

By the way, the same New York Times section that mentions “Obama denounces statements of his pastor as inflammatory”, carries another disturbing piece of information about Obama’s character: “Obama describes developer deal as a mistake.”Here’s another “let’s say what they want to hear” statement.

If Obama truly rejects Farrakhan, if Obama truly rejects the fundamental positions of Rev. Wright, I would expect for him to come out and publicly say loudly: “Farrakhan, Wright, you are bigots, you are hate preachers, and I want everybody to know it, and to know that I am totally disassociating myself from you!”

Until this happens, my “Blink” factor tells me that Obama is someone not to be trusted.

What do you think?

Thursday, March 13, 2008

The “Next Up Doctrine” – A Strategy for World Peace

Over the years, Arab leaders kept sending a message to the Western world, and we kept ignoring their message in our fight against terrorism. Their dire message: the lives of the Arab people are expendable.

Even though history has examples from other eras confirming the above, I will make my case with the Arab-Israeli conflict and will start in 1947, when the United Nations created two countries for two peoples that inhabited the same area: Jews and Arabs.

The “Next Up Doctrine” that is being introduced here, deals with the necessity of accountability for top leaders of countries that support terrorism in one way or another. While this essay will not deal with all aspects of the doctrine, it aims at explaining the basic idea and laying the ground for its need.

In 1946, according to statistics from the United Nations, there were around 600,000 Jews living under the British Mandate in Palestine, and close to 1.2 million Arabs living in the same area – including what is today the West Bank.

With the creation of Israel and Palestine in 1947, notwithstanding the fact that the bulk of the land assigned to the Jewish State was desert, and therefore unsuitable for agriculture or urbanization, Jews rejoiced with the fact that after 2000 years they would have a land of their own again. Arabs, on the other hand, would gain one more country, next to Jordan, which itself was a recently created entity. One would think that the partition would be a reasonable solution and now both peoples would live towards building prosper countries for them and their descendants. Not quite.

As soon as Israel’s independence was declared, the armies of four neighboring countries tried to annihilate it. While a good portion of the 850,000 Jews expelled from the Arab countries had to find their way to an Israel in war, and help defend it and develop a country of their own, Jordanian newspaper Falastin reported in 1949 that “…Arab states encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.”

This leads us to the first situation in the context of this conflict, where Arab leaders showed that their people’s life are disposable. Of course, everybody knows that Israel was not defeated, and therefore a new strategy had to be devised. The strategy, in all Arab countries, with no exception, became to keep their “brethren” in refugee camps, in the most miserable conditions, so that they would be used as an instrument of propaganda against Israel. And so it is, that 60 years after the United Nations partition plan was approved, and despite the millions of dollars that the UNRWA poured into the refugee camps which ended up in the Swiss bank accounts of Arafat and other Palestinian leaders, despite the billions of dollars in oil revenues collected by the Presidents, Kings and Princes from the Arab countries, those 340,000 Arabs who left their homes in the late 40’s turned into the miserable millions that are called now the “Refugee Problem.”

In the meantime, the 850,000 Jews that were expelled from the Arab countries and the hundreds of thousands of survivors from the Holocaust that went to other parts of the world and Israel, prospered both individually and as a country. They refused to become refugees. They were determined to improve their lives, and the lives of others. Just look at how many scientists, intellectuals and entrepreneurs they generated.

With the “Refugee Problem” not helping to achieve their strategy, Arab leaders then decided to use them in a different way that, again, showed their total neglect to the value of human lives in general, and specifically of their people. Those leaders had an easy corps of volunteers, and an easy villain to blame. The volunteers would be the same group of Arabs that they kept in wretched conditions for decades, and the villain would be Jews, Israel and those who support them. And thus, terrorists and suicide bombers became their “contribution” to the world.

Several countries have fallen victims to this new plague, and the main strategy in tackling this phenomenon is to try and capture or kill their leadership. “Leadership” in this context is the field commanders – military or spiritual. Here is what those at the helm of Israel and the western countries are failing to understand: the “leadership” they are after, is nothing more than a sort of “middle or upper management”, which in the eyes of those who provide the infrastructure, are also disposable. They are people from refugee camps, or other Middle Eastern countries recruited or volunteering to do the “dirty” jobs. Once they are eliminated from the scene, others can take their place.

But who are those who offer the money, the armaments, the blessing and training infrastructure, if not the presidents, princes and kings of countries ranging from Iran and Syria, all the way to Saudi Arabia. In fact, going beyond the Middle East, just last week Colombia seized proof that President Chavez from Venezuela transferred $300 million to the South American terrorist group FARC.

This is where the “Next Up Doctrine” comes in. There seems to be a formal, or informal rule that protects leaders of countries from being targeted – even if they are the most evil dictators. The world should not wait until a tragedy of big proportions hits us all. The world needs to go after those who, without their support the terrorist machine can’t continue working. The ones who do think of their lives as not being expendable. The world needs in unison send the message to Assad, Ahmedinajad and even to princes in Saudi Arabia: “You are the next up. Either you do what needs to be done to stop the terrorists, or you will stop enjoying your power and wealth, because there will be no more you.” Those who know that they have nothing to fear about, should not be worried with the “Next Up Doctrine.” In addition to that, the implementation of this doctrine should substantially reduce the possibility of wars like Iraq, or large military engagements like the one between Israel and Hizbollah in south Lebanon, which ultimately cause a large number of collateral victims.

This past week, Dr. Daniel Doron, President of the Israel Center for Social and Economic Progress said that “Israel and Western democracies must treat the terrorists' mortal challenge as a war for survival, not as a series of skirmishes. And in war, you must fight to win, by all traditional means.”

I would add that the “Next Up Doctrine” needs to be implemented in order to eradicate terrorism. And once it achieves its goal, it needs to become a “traditional means” to preserve world peace.

What do you think?