It was my intention to write a year in review type article but I tabled that idea. There is only one year in review you all should read and that is the one written by Dave Barry. Check out the link at the bottom of the page and do read it. Very funny and very well done as always.
I decided instead to pass out awards for the top performers in 2005. Some are funny, some are sad and some might seem weird but here goes. Drumroll please...
The Civic Duty Award - Goes to the jury on the Michael Jackson trial. Apparently these 12 rubes were not present on this planet during the months the Jackson trial took place. If they were they would have known that "Jacko" was guilty. Alas, they followed the leadership of such other fine California juries (OJ Simpson, the Menendez Brothers, etc) and let him Moonwalk all the way to Bharain (his new home).
Medal of Valor Award - Tie between New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and FEMA Director Mike Brown. These three sad individuals botched, rebotched and then botched again the entire mess that ensued before, during and after Hurricane Katrina. All are equally culpable yet each conveniently blames the other while stating they were the "only ones showing leadership." All three should be forced to sweep the streets of New Orleans during Mardi Gras and Southern Decadence.
Corporate Leadership Award - Goes to none other than the Dolan family. This first family of New York media had an out and out feud between father and son over a failed satellite service called VOOM. The old man and son rattled sabers at each other before finally agreeing (begrudginly) to close VOOM and sell the assets. All the while the company's stock took a massive tumble.
The Please Make It Stop Award - Goes to Fox News correspondents Greta Van Susteren and Geraldo Rivera. Geraldo for the Terri Schiavo case and Greta for the Natalee Holloway case. This fine news channel has been co-opted by these two schmos and they need to be outsourced somewhere where no one we'll watch them. Like MSNBC.
The Big Whiner Award - Goes to all the Manchester United fans who claimed Man U would be "ruined" by the purchase of the club by American Malcom Glazer. These weenies claimed the famed club would lose their fan base and there would be repercussion of epic proportions. The result: Man U still sells out and while they are running 5th in the Premiership, they are making money and playing in front of all those rabid fans who vowed never to show up again.
The Boy Did We Get Fleeced Award - Goes to all the Hollywood studios for the pointless trash they greenlighted and that no one went to see. With few exceptions, everything Tinseltown put out landed at the box office with a loud thud. Guys, the key to making good movies is actually "writing a script that's interesting." I know that flies in the face of the new way to do movies which is to blow up lots of stuff and have minimal dialogue but give it a try. You may be surprised.
The Please Pay Attention to Me Award - Goes to North Korean dictator and cartoon looking freak, Kim Jong-Il. Kim, desperately trying to get the attention of anyone, continues to to play nuclear poker with the world. His motive appears to be his need for people to take his phone calls because his "country" doesn't appear to be gaining any additional support nor are they striking any more fear into the world. Perhaps in 2006 Kim will attempt to strike a deal that actually gets food to all those people living around him.
The I Cannot Tell a Lie Award - Goest to baseball "legend", Viagra pitchmen and all around smarmy character Rafael Palmeiro. Shortly after appearing before Congress and emphatically denying taking steriods, Raffy fails a drug test for, wait for it, steroids. Strong work.
The Lion in Winter Award - Goes to General Motors. The titan of the auto industry found 2005 to be a hard year. From poor sales, dealers in revolt, rising health care costs and 217 year old Kirk Kerkorian, GM faces a hard reality and the outcome could be very ugly. The stock is in the tank and their bonds are trading at junk status. Everything from selling off parts of GMAC to filing for bankruptcy is on the table for 2006. Hopefully the venerable car company will find traction very soon.
That's it for 2005. The Hawk has enjoyed his blogging so far and looks forward to more fun and nonsense in 2006. Hope you'll stop by from time to time.
Hawk...
The Year in Review
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/13511044.htm
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Should California Save Tookie?
On Tuesday the state of California will likely carry out its most controversial execution since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the early 1970's. The case involves Stanley "Tookie" Williams. Mr. Williams is on "The Row" for his involvement in 4 homicides in 1979. In addition Mr. Williams was the co-founder of The Crips street gang, which still exists today.
Mr. Williams case is a cause celebre for many individuals. Death penatly opponents to Hollywood celebrities have lined up and spoke up on his behalf, demanding he be granted clemency.
The rationale for this is based on the fact that Williams has turned his life around in prison. In his 24 years in prison, Williams has gone from a gang founder to an outspoken opponent of gangs and violence. Along the way he has written several children's books and been nominated for the Nobel Prize 6 times (5 for peace and one for literature).
To be fair the main arugment Wiliams supporters have is the above, but upon further review, those points are tad more hollow than they seem...
Nobel Prize Nominations: While The Hawk is still seeking his elusive first Nobel Prize nomination for this weblog, it should be pointed out that being nominated for a Nobel is not as special as it is cracked up to be. First off, anyone can be nominated. Secondly, nominations are never released by the Nobel committee. Finally, Mohandis Gahndi, Martin Luther King and Desmond Tutu all won the Prize but Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini were all in the running for one as well.
Writing Children's Books: It's nice that he has a hobby but writing children's books does not mean that one should get total redemption from one's past crimes.
Speaking Out Against Violence: One would hope as Mr. Williams got older he would speak out against the violence that got him on "The Row" in the first place. That is the benefit of getting older, you tend to get wiser and more mature.
He's Sorry For His Crimes: Mr. Williams still proclaims his innocence through all of this despite 16 years of failed appeals. At the end of the day, he doesn't want clemency he wants out of prison. While The Hawk does not think that a man should cop to a crime he did not commit, it is not a stretch that a street gang founder, high on PCP could in fact commit such crimes. Again, no evidence (DNA or witness) has come up to suggest Mr. Williams is innocent. It was his gun who killed those people and that we know for certain.
Hawk's View: In the end, Mr. Williams, like everyone on death row, should be granted clemency because The Hawk does not believe in the death penalty. Not because I think the prisoners deserve better but for the exact opposite. The death penalty turns madmen and monsters into martyrs and those folks simply do not deserve anyone's time. Lock them up and throw away the key. They may be alive but they are not living, they are existing in a metal cage to think of all of their past misdeeds. That's the toughest punishment of all. Along the way if some do reform, good for them, but they still have to live with the fact that they will spend the rest of their days irrelevant behind bars waiting for their day to come. That's a long time to live with the shame of crime.
Note: Please read the link above from the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson. Very interesting.
Mr. Williams case is a cause celebre for many individuals. Death penatly opponents to Hollywood celebrities have lined up and spoke up on his behalf, demanding he be granted clemency.
The rationale for this is based on the fact that Williams has turned his life around in prison. In his 24 years in prison, Williams has gone from a gang founder to an outspoken opponent of gangs and violence. Along the way he has written several children's books and been nominated for the Nobel Prize 6 times (5 for peace and one for literature).
To be fair the main arugment Wiliams supporters have is the above, but upon further review, those points are tad more hollow than they seem...
Nobel Prize Nominations: While The Hawk is still seeking his elusive first Nobel Prize nomination for this weblog, it should be pointed out that being nominated for a Nobel is not as special as it is cracked up to be. First off, anyone can be nominated. Secondly, nominations are never released by the Nobel committee. Finally, Mohandis Gahndi, Martin Luther King and Desmond Tutu all won the Prize but Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini were all in the running for one as well.
Writing Children's Books: It's nice that he has a hobby but writing children's books does not mean that one should get total redemption from one's past crimes.
Speaking Out Against Violence: One would hope as Mr. Williams got older he would speak out against the violence that got him on "The Row" in the first place. That is the benefit of getting older, you tend to get wiser and more mature.
He's Sorry For His Crimes: Mr. Williams still proclaims his innocence through all of this despite 16 years of failed appeals. At the end of the day, he doesn't want clemency he wants out of prison. While The Hawk does not think that a man should cop to a crime he did not commit, it is not a stretch that a street gang founder, high on PCP could in fact commit such crimes. Again, no evidence (DNA or witness) has come up to suggest Mr. Williams is innocent. It was his gun who killed those people and that we know for certain.
Hawk's View: In the end, Mr. Williams, like everyone on death row, should be granted clemency because The Hawk does not believe in the death penalty. Not because I think the prisoners deserve better but for the exact opposite. The death penalty turns madmen and monsters into martyrs and those folks simply do not deserve anyone's time. Lock them up and throw away the key. They may be alive but they are not living, they are existing in a metal cage to think of all of their past misdeeds. That's the toughest punishment of all. Along the way if some do reform, good for them, but they still have to live with the fact that they will spend the rest of their days irrelevant behind bars waiting for their day to come. That's a long time to live with the shame of crime.
Note: Please read the link above from the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson. Very interesting.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Time Warner's Icahn Problem
In the Spring I posted a couple of stories regarding blowhard investor Carl Icahn and his target at the time (Blockbuster). The first dealt with Icahn being hung up on during a web conference for all the world to hear. The second dealt with heavy handed approach CEO John Antiocco was taking when dealing with Icahn. At the time "Uncle" Carl (as he likes to be known, very man of the people) was lodging a complaint that Blockbuster was not acting in the best interest of the shareholders. Icahn got what he wanted (board seats) and has rest assured made life miserable for Mr. Antiocco since he and his band merry investors ascended onto the board.
Now Icahn has moved on to a bigger target. None other than Time Warner (formerly AOL Time Warner, formerly Time Inc and Warner Brothers, formerly Turner Broadcasting and...well you get the picture). Icahn has put TW CEO Richard Parsons on notice: spin-off the entire cable division, increase the dividend and get rid of AOL or else...
The "or else" in that statement means that if Carl doesn't exact his pound of greenmail that he'll pull the same thing on TW that he pulled with Blockbuster. No doubt making Mr. Parsons life equally miserable as he did for Mr. Antiocco.
Icahn's M.0. is veiled in "unlocking shareholder value." But in essence what he does is take a big stake and then force companies to pay him off in the short term via dividends or buybacks. If he doesn't get what he wants he takes his fight public and drags the company in question out into a war.
The problem is Icahn's moves generally make company's worse off because they are forced to abandon long-term strategies or worse yet put them in a poor negotiating position (E.G., it'll be tough for Parsons and crew to negotiate a "fair" AOL deal if even I know that they are being pushed hard to sell it).
However, Mr. Parsons should not be underestimated. Underneath that sweet veneer is a man who knows how to negotiate and lead in times of peril. It is he who pared down TW's debt, unwound the difficult cable partnership with Comcast and sold the music business for a tidy profit. He can handle Icahn if the board backs him up. The question is of course, will they?
Hawk's View: This is a bit of a cage match but I like it to end in a draw with Icahn getting a nice fat check to go bother some other media company (are you paying attention Viacom?). Look for buybacks to go up and for AOL to get sold off (Microsoft is the one). However, don't expect Parsons to give in when it comes to spinning off the entire cable operation. Parsons knows that business is a long term strategic play and giving it all up now will not nearly bring them enough money for the leverage they will lose. Look for a portion of the cable business to be spun off by late Summer with TW still holding a majority position. And look for Icahn to be stalking some other company by then.
Now Icahn has moved on to a bigger target. None other than Time Warner (formerly AOL Time Warner, formerly Time Inc and Warner Brothers, formerly Turner Broadcasting and...well you get the picture). Icahn has put TW CEO Richard Parsons on notice: spin-off the entire cable division, increase the dividend and get rid of AOL or else...
The "or else" in that statement means that if Carl doesn't exact his pound of greenmail that he'll pull the same thing on TW that he pulled with Blockbuster. No doubt making Mr. Parsons life equally miserable as he did for Mr. Antiocco.
Icahn's M.0. is veiled in "unlocking shareholder value." But in essence what he does is take a big stake and then force companies to pay him off in the short term via dividends or buybacks. If he doesn't get what he wants he takes his fight public and drags the company in question out into a war.
The problem is Icahn's moves generally make company's worse off because they are forced to abandon long-term strategies or worse yet put them in a poor negotiating position (E.G., it'll be tough for Parsons and crew to negotiate a "fair" AOL deal if even I know that they are being pushed hard to sell it).
However, Mr. Parsons should not be underestimated. Underneath that sweet veneer is a man who knows how to negotiate and lead in times of peril. It is he who pared down TW's debt, unwound the difficult cable partnership with Comcast and sold the music business for a tidy profit. He can handle Icahn if the board backs him up. The question is of course, will they?
Hawk's View: This is a bit of a cage match but I like it to end in a draw with Icahn getting a nice fat check to go bother some other media company (are you paying attention Viacom?). Look for buybacks to go up and for AOL to get sold off (Microsoft is the one). However, don't expect Parsons to give in when it comes to spinning off the entire cable operation. Parsons knows that business is a long term strategic play and giving it all up now will not nearly bring them enough money for the leverage they will lose. Look for a portion of the cable business to be spun off by late Summer with TW still holding a majority position. And look for Icahn to be stalking some other company by then.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
We Don't Need a Fence
I can't believe a guy of my political leanings is writing this but, I'll take my chances.
Recently there has been a movement afoot to build a fence from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico along the US/Mexican border. The fence movement is spurned by many groups who are tired of the millions of people streaming over the border on a daily basis.
The idea comes from an experiment taking place in San Diego where an 18 mile fence was built. The results were positive. Illegal crossings were way down. As a result the idea blossomed to take the fence across the country (see above for diagram)
To be fair the "fence people" are not suggesting we close our border to people here to work. They have a "guest worker" program that would allow individuals to be here legally and enjoy the protection of being a citizen of the US. What they are trying to solve is those who do not work or those of a criminal element (drug dealers, arms smugglers, etc) and of the terrorist element. To be sure national security is the main drum they are banging.
They are right that the fence would make it easier for our border patrol and would be cheaper in the long run than adding more and more people to monitor the border.
But building a fence is not what we do in America. Yes we have an illegal immigrant issues here in the US but the fence won't stop it. The fence will make it harder and more dangerous but it will not stop the problem.
The problem is Mexico is an abomination in developing its economy. The thriving industrial areas are being overrun by corrupt officials and the rule of law is fading. Kidnappings on expats are up to an all time high and the country lost control of the Nuevo Laredo area earlier this year to rival drugs (see link info) http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2005/5/10/215352/497
A fence won't stop these problems.
Hawk's View: I'd rather see the US take the "fence money" and enact both an economic and anti-corruption plan for Mexico. Let's face it, without one you can't have the other (see Russia as an example that tries to have a free market sans rule of law). Yes, it sounds pie in the sky and the fence is the quickest way to get short term gains on the "war on illegals" but short term does not solve our problem. The bottom line is America is lucky with its geography. We have no neighbors to the east or west and our northern neighbor is the world's friendliest country. Yes we have a problem with our southern neighbor but a fence will only shield us from the greater issues going on. The best way to protect us is to make our neighbor stronger.
The Bastille is Being Stormed...Again
Most of you saw that France has been mired in a "Car Burning Extravaganza" over the past three weeks. The festivities, triggered by the accidental death of two youths hiding from police, has torn the country in two and brought to light decades of hidden racism among France and it's immigrant population.
France has prided itself as a place that is open to all (except Republicans) and has trumped for years a society of acceptance. However that has always been a (well hidden) facade. In reality, France has run a society that has segregated immigrants (specifically Muslim immigrants) and has created a permanent underclass of people. The uprising is really the modern day "proletariot" rising against the "bourgeois" demanding a better life.
France's government responded in the only fashion they know how: cowardly. First they denied the problem was anything but a "small group of thugs" then they ignored the reason for the issue alltogether. In their attempt to "fix" the problem France decided that tightening immigration and making it harder to be a citizen was the right way to solve this indignity.
Of course, they are wrong. The problem is the individuals who are rising up are doing so only because they seek to be treated equally. They want to be treated like all the other French citizens. They are upset that unemployment is double amongst their populace. They are upset that they cannot express themselves (EG, wearing headscarves as dictated by religious law). In short they want to be treated like humans not as cattle.
Finally, the world can see France for what it really is and always has been: a society of elitist.
Hawk's View: Tightening immigration does not solve the problem, because the problem is with people who are in France now and are LEGAL. Not only will this backfire, I don't think it will play well in the EU either. The first step toward solving this problem is to admit you have one and then make necessary steps. I'll even suggest what the first one would be: begin to break up the enormous ghettos that reside in and around Paris. Attempt to bring new French citizens into French society. Openness will always win over draconianism.
France has prided itself as a place that is open to all (except Republicans) and has trumped for years a society of acceptance. However that has always been a (well hidden) facade. In reality, France has run a society that has segregated immigrants (specifically Muslim immigrants) and has created a permanent underclass of people. The uprising is really the modern day "proletariot" rising against the "bourgeois" demanding a better life.
France's government responded in the only fashion they know how: cowardly. First they denied the problem was anything but a "small group of thugs" then they ignored the reason for the issue alltogether. In their attempt to "fix" the problem France decided that tightening immigration and making it harder to be a citizen was the right way to solve this indignity.
Of course, they are wrong. The problem is the individuals who are rising up are doing so only because they seek to be treated equally. They want to be treated like all the other French citizens. They are upset that unemployment is double amongst their populace. They are upset that they cannot express themselves (EG, wearing headscarves as dictated by religious law). In short they want to be treated like humans not as cattle.
Finally, the world can see France for what it really is and always has been: a society of elitist.
Hawk's View: Tightening immigration does not solve the problem, because the problem is with people who are in France now and are LEGAL. Not only will this backfire, I don't think it will play well in the EU either. The first step toward solving this problem is to admit you have one and then make necessary steps. I'll even suggest what the first one would be: begin to break up the enormous ghettos that reside in and around Paris. Attempt to bring new French citizens into French society. Openness will always win over draconianism.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
The Hawk's Plan for New Orleans
The newspapers and media have been dominated by Hurricane Katrina and all the horrible things that happened. From "Iron" Mike Brown's so-called FEMA leadership to Mayor Ray Nagin conveniently blaming everyone, save for himself, for all the issues that transpired.
As much fun as it would be to take potshots, I've decided to focus my time, energy and fleeting sleep schedule on what should happen next to New Orleans. I've listed five ideas (along with new city names) that I'm sure the feds will take into consideration (they read this blog you know). All plans for rebuilding the city call for - wait for it - building the city "above" sea level. What a novel idea. Even an Iowa State engineer can figure that one out.
Drumroll please...
1. Vene-Orleans - My favorite plan is to turn New Orleans into a sort of Venice American Style (not to be confused with the poor 70's TV show Love American Style). This idea is kind of cool and the good news is the New Orleans already has a lingering bad smell (similar to Venice). Instead of gondolas the city could use flat bottom airboats.
2. Las New Orleans - That's right, turn the place into Vegas south. They were already there anyway. New Orleans has a casino and the necessary corrupt government and mob ties. All they were missing was the right marketing campaign. How about "What Gets Projectile Vomited in New Orleans, Stays on Streets of New Orleans." OK, maybe something a tad more subtle but work with me here.
3. Dome Orleans - They are probably going to want to pick a different name but why not just dome the whole damn place? It can even be retractable for all three of the days of the year where it is not stifling hot and humid. Think of the construction contract! I still haven't figured out how to land planes in a dome but I'm working on it.
4. AtlantisOrleans - OK, I lied. Not EVERY plan for the city included building it above sea level, but work with me here. Why fight nature. It's underwater, let's work with it. Now's our chance to prove to the world man CAN build a city underwater. We already have a head start as 60% of the buildings are sumbmerged anyway. I'm sure Trump would be interested in getting a casino built. We could call it TrumpTank.
5. Baja Orleans - Let's face it, all we really need from New Olreans is the port, other than that we could probably do without the city. The folks who have been displaced will no doubt find better lives in better cities. Jazz music can move to Memphis and the only other reason to keep New Orleans (the Sugar Bowl) could be moved to Houston. We could give Mexico the city and they could run it and employ all those illegal immigrants in the bars, casinos and strip joints that litter the city. Plus Mexico could get that warm fuzzy feeling that comes with regaining land you lost after getting slapped around a century ago. They get the city, we get paid in oil. What a deal.
Hawk's View: OK, more than likely I'm ahead of my time on my ideas but all kidding aside, New Orleans should be rebuilt (above ground) because that's what America does, it marches on. Look for a new, regentrified, city to be on the drawing board and look for America to embrace it and come back. Because there is nothing more that we love than a comeback story. Go New Orleans.
As much fun as it would be to take potshots, I've decided to focus my time, energy and fleeting sleep schedule on what should happen next to New Orleans. I've listed five ideas (along with new city names) that I'm sure the feds will take into consideration (they read this blog you know). All plans for rebuilding the city call for - wait for it - building the city "above" sea level. What a novel idea. Even an Iowa State engineer can figure that one out.
Drumroll please...
1. Vene-Orleans - My favorite plan is to turn New Orleans into a sort of Venice American Style (not to be confused with the poor 70's TV show Love American Style). This idea is kind of cool and the good news is the New Orleans already has a lingering bad smell (similar to Venice). Instead of gondolas the city could use flat bottom airboats.
2. Las New Orleans - That's right, turn the place into Vegas south. They were already there anyway. New Orleans has a casino and the necessary corrupt government and mob ties. All they were missing was the right marketing campaign. How about "What Gets Projectile Vomited in New Orleans, Stays on Streets of New Orleans." OK, maybe something a tad more subtle but work with me here.
3. Dome Orleans - They are probably going to want to pick a different name but why not just dome the whole damn place? It can even be retractable for all three of the days of the year where it is not stifling hot and humid. Think of the construction contract! I still haven't figured out how to land planes in a dome but I'm working on it.
4. AtlantisOrleans - OK, I lied. Not EVERY plan for the city included building it above sea level, but work with me here. Why fight nature. It's underwater, let's work with it. Now's our chance to prove to the world man CAN build a city underwater. We already have a head start as 60% of the buildings are sumbmerged anyway. I'm sure Trump would be interested in getting a casino built. We could call it TrumpTank.
5. Baja Orleans - Let's face it, all we really need from New Olreans is the port, other than that we could probably do without the city. The folks who have been displaced will no doubt find better lives in better cities. Jazz music can move to Memphis and the only other reason to keep New Orleans (the Sugar Bowl) could be moved to Houston. We could give Mexico the city and they could run it and employ all those illegal immigrants in the bars, casinos and strip joints that litter the city. Plus Mexico could get that warm fuzzy feeling that comes with regaining land you lost after getting slapped around a century ago. They get the city, we get paid in oil. What a deal.
Hawk's View: OK, more than likely I'm ahead of my time on my ideas but all kidding aside, New Orleans should be rebuilt (above ground) because that's what America does, it marches on. Look for a new, regentrified, city to be on the drawing board and look for America to embrace it and come back. Because there is nothing more that we love than a comeback story. Go New Orleans.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Posting Update: Man United - The Yanks Go Marching In...
Man United, the venerable UK soccer (NOT football) club, won at home this past weekend for their first home win in this season Premier League.
The biggest news was that people were actually in the stands. When the club was sold to the Glazer family earlier this Summer Man United fans took to the streets with the crown of thorns sitting firmly atop their heads. They promised boycotts of Man U products and matches. No way those dastardly Americans would succeed owning this piece of British Culture.
As predicted by The Hawk, nothing has come of these blowhards. The stands at Old Trafford were full of beer imbibing soccer fans. The British Empire has not come to an end (if the cooking or Camilla Parker Bowles didn't do it, this certainly wouldn't).
Again, if the Glazer's use the type of forthright they did with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (sports worst franchise ever when they took over) than the boys from Man U will be fine. That's unfortunate for those boycotting blokes...
The biggest news was that people were actually in the stands. When the club was sold to the Glazer family earlier this Summer Man United fans took to the streets with the crown of thorns sitting firmly atop their heads. They promised boycotts of Man U products and matches. No way those dastardly Americans would succeed owning this piece of British Culture.
As predicted by The Hawk, nothing has come of these blowhards. The stands at Old Trafford were full of beer imbibing soccer fans. The British Empire has not come to an end (if the cooking or Camilla Parker Bowles didn't do it, this certainly wouldn't).
Again, if the Glazer's use the type of forthright they did with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (sports worst franchise ever when they took over) than the boys from Man U will be fine. That's unfortunate for those boycotting blokes...
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Coming to a Cable System Near You...The AK-4700 Club Hosted by Pat Robertson
Just when you thought you had heard it all, out comes this. The story of a America's favorite televangelist (just ask him) sounds off that we need to rub out the President of Venezuela.
You just can't make it up. Pat Robertson, he of Liberty University, The 700 Club and failed presidential runs, has decided that we need to take out the dastardly "Honest" Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
Make no mistake Chavez is a clown. He's forced himself into power (via "elections") in the western hemisphere's largest oil producer. He's buddy-buddy with Fidel Castro and wants to use Venezuelan oil as a "weapon" against the US. Never mind that Venezuela currently happily sells oil to the US.
While the above is all true, Robertson's response is one of those things you think but DO NOT SAY. Especially on national TV (although The Hawk feels Robertson's audience probably agreed with him). Maybe Robertson's old and just doesn't care or maybe he's pining for attention. Either way his comments are a pathetic attempt by a man who's days as a relevant social voice are behind him. I even wonder if Robertson has some sort of business interest in Venezuela that makes him lean toward have "Honest" Hugo bumped off. Certainly if that is the case we will know more about that soon.
Hawk's View: Chavez is a thorn in the side of the US and make no mistake we want him out of there. But it won't come to us rubbing him out or even invading. We'll neuter him the way we do other despots. In the end Hugo will realize that the only way he can stay in power is by selling oil to the US. As for Robertson, maybe he can have a show on the NRA Network called the AK-4700 Club. Stay tuned.
You just can't make it up. Pat Robertson, he of Liberty University, The 700 Club and failed presidential runs, has decided that we need to take out the dastardly "Honest" Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
Make no mistake Chavez is a clown. He's forced himself into power (via "elections") in the western hemisphere's largest oil producer. He's buddy-buddy with Fidel Castro and wants to use Venezuelan oil as a "weapon" against the US. Never mind that Venezuela currently happily sells oil to the US.
While the above is all true, Robertson's response is one of those things you think but DO NOT SAY. Especially on national TV (although The Hawk feels Robertson's audience probably agreed with him). Maybe Robertson's old and just doesn't care or maybe he's pining for attention. Either way his comments are a pathetic attempt by a man who's days as a relevant social voice are behind him. I even wonder if Robertson has some sort of business interest in Venezuela that makes him lean toward have "Honest" Hugo bumped off. Certainly if that is the case we will know more about that soon.
Hawk's View: Chavez is a thorn in the side of the US and make no mistake we want him out of there. But it won't come to us rubbing him out or even invading. We'll neuter him the way we do other despots. In the end Hugo will realize that the only way he can stay in power is by selling oil to the US. As for Robertson, maybe he can have a show on the NRA Network called the AK-4700 Club. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Big Labor Gets Competitive Again
Last week in Chicago the AFL/CIO had its annual meeting/Democratic fundraiser. Usually the meeting is a backslapper with the obligatory bashing of all things non-labor (Read: Wal-Mart).
Only this meeting provided a few more fireworks. As expected, AFL/CIO President John Sweeney won a reelection, but in the face of it he is staring at a massive defection that has never been seen before in the labor union.
Both the Teamsters and the SEIU have stated they will be splitting off and taking their members with them. More than likely other unions will follow suit. The reasoning for the split is both simple and reasonable. The AFL/CIO has become too concerned with raising political dollars and in the process put recruiting new members on the backburner.
The decision to split makes sense. Labor representation in the workforce is at historic lows and everywhere you look companies are either shunning labor (Wal-Mart) or shafting them (the auto and airline industry). The mantra that the AFL/CIO has followed for years (being lap dogs to the Democratic party) has done zero to advance the cause of the labor union.
Hawk's View: Competition is a good thing. Having two competiting groups out there fighting for members will mean less time will be spent on funding Ted Kennedy's campaign and more time advancing the labor cause. Frankly this split should have happened ten years ago and that if nothing else it will make for great fun to watch the two groups out there shouting their message. The Hawk has his wings crossed that their first target will be Wal-Mart.
Only this meeting provided a few more fireworks. As expected, AFL/CIO President John Sweeney won a reelection, but in the face of it he is staring at a massive defection that has never been seen before in the labor union.
Both the Teamsters and the SEIU have stated they will be splitting off and taking their members with them. More than likely other unions will follow suit. The reasoning for the split is both simple and reasonable. The AFL/CIO has become too concerned with raising political dollars and in the process put recruiting new members on the backburner.
The decision to split makes sense. Labor representation in the workforce is at historic lows and everywhere you look companies are either shunning labor (Wal-Mart) or shafting them (the auto and airline industry). The mantra that the AFL/CIO has followed for years (being lap dogs to the Democratic party) has done zero to advance the cause of the labor union.
Hawk's View: Competition is a good thing. Having two competiting groups out there fighting for members will mean less time will be spent on funding Ted Kennedy's campaign and more time advancing the labor cause. Frankly this split should have happened ten years ago and that if nothing else it will make for great fun to watch the two groups out there shouting their message. The Hawk has his wings crossed that their first target will be Wal-Mart.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Hockey's Back
In case you didn't notice (and judging by their previous TV ratings, you didn't), hockey is back. I'll pause as the 12 guys in the bar in Yellowknife slam a Molson in excitement.
Yes the sport that brought you toothless men, the coolest trophy around and guys who think "eh" is actually a word will drop the puck in October in front of dozens of people in arenas around North America.
The sport missed last season due to a lockout as billionaire owners, who seemingly forgot how they became billionaires (guys, if you spend more than you take in that means you LOSE money...) finally realized they needed to be saved from themselves. But boy were they in for a lesson. The owners were up against a union that was stuck in its principal. "When it comes to a salary cap, we will not waiver" they screamed to the media. The players were prepared to fight it out and show those good for nothing owners (OK, just the guys who own the Blackhawks are good for nothing) who's in charge.
And boy did they do just that. Not since the French let the Germans roll through Paris WWII had a collection of individuals lay down collectively like the players association, and their fearless leader Bob "General Custer" Goodenow, did in these negotiations. For those of you who think I'm being too harsh, check out the scorecard below...
Salary Cap:
Player's Take: Not over my hockey-hair headed body
Reality: $37 MM cap
Salary Cuts
Player's Take: We scoff at that idea...
Reality: 24% rollback for everyone
Individual Salary Cap
Player's Take: What do you think this is the WNBA
Reality: No salary higher than $7MM
I think it's safe to say the owners ten runned the players on this one. However, the rub is that had the Union gotten serious about negotiating earlier they would have gotten a better deal. Goodenow and crew never thought the owners would shut down the season. Little did they know that the Gang of 30 would have been just fine taking a Winter off. When it got down to crunch time the Union hemmed and hawed at a salary cap of $42 MM. When they waited too long the owners pulled the deal. And the Union ended up getting less. The whole thing cost Union head Bob Goodenow his job (as it should).
Hawk's View: I don't consider myself much of a puckhead but I think hockey can make it back. Hockey fans are notoriously loyal and I expect teams will draw well (although don't expect the owners new found "cost certainty" to reflect in lower ticket prices). Where hockey really has a shot is with High Definition TV. The game represents better than any sporting event out there in HD (yes, even football) and is a lot more fun to watch. It'll take time but the Hawk feels that the future of the NHL is bright. Don't you agree, eh...
Yes the sport that brought you toothless men, the coolest trophy around and guys who think "eh" is actually a word will drop the puck in October in front of dozens of people in arenas around North America.
The sport missed last season due to a lockout as billionaire owners, who seemingly forgot how they became billionaires (guys, if you spend more than you take in that means you LOSE money...) finally realized they needed to be saved from themselves. But boy were they in for a lesson. The owners were up against a union that was stuck in its principal. "When it comes to a salary cap, we will not waiver" they screamed to the media. The players were prepared to fight it out and show those good for nothing owners (OK, just the guys who own the Blackhawks are good for nothing) who's in charge.
And boy did they do just that. Not since the French let the Germans roll through Paris WWII had a collection of individuals lay down collectively like the players association, and their fearless leader Bob "General Custer" Goodenow, did in these negotiations. For those of you who think I'm being too harsh, check out the scorecard below...
Salary Cap:
Player's Take: Not over my hockey-hair headed body
Reality: $37 MM cap
Salary Cuts
Player's Take: We scoff at that idea...
Reality: 24% rollback for everyone
Individual Salary Cap
Player's Take: What do you think this is the WNBA
Reality: No salary higher than $7MM
I think it's safe to say the owners ten runned the players on this one. However, the rub is that had the Union gotten serious about negotiating earlier they would have gotten a better deal. Goodenow and crew never thought the owners would shut down the season. Little did they know that the Gang of 30 would have been just fine taking a Winter off. When it got down to crunch time the Union hemmed and hawed at a salary cap of $42 MM. When they waited too long the owners pulled the deal. And the Union ended up getting less. The whole thing cost Union head Bob Goodenow his job (as it should).
Hawk's View: I don't consider myself much of a puckhead but I think hockey can make it back. Hockey fans are notoriously loyal and I expect teams will draw well (although don't expect the owners new found "cost certainty" to reflect in lower ticket prices). Where hockey really has a shot is with High Definition TV. The game represents better than any sporting event out there in HD (yes, even football) and is a lot more fun to watch. It'll take time but the Hawk feels that the future of the NHL is bright. Don't you agree, eh...
Motown Becomes Woetown
Good news came to all 300,000,000 Americans earlier this Summer - everyone of us was hired by the Big 3 automakers in Detroit. Yes that's right, each one of us now gets the employee discount. The same price every Ford, GM and Chrysler serf pays for their domestically made bucket of bolts.
The Motor City Madmen have once again reached a new low when it comes to selling cars. They are all so desperate to keep factories running so pension and health care costs can be met that they must churn out cars or perish. Yes, in the short run things will look good. However, the issue on the table has not changed - people still think Detroit still makes blah cars. The blip that all three will see in the short run will wear off quickly and they will all return back from Dreamland.
Throw out heavy trucks and a couple of models by GM (Cadillac) and Chrysler/Dodge and Detroit is still giving us a little better version of the cars we saw in Michael Moore's well done 1985 epic Roger and Me. Design, quality and marketing still win the war.
However, Detroit is not built that way. So hamstrung by concessions they have given to the UAW over the years, the Big 3 have a cost obligation that has completely dominated their scope for the better part of 15 years. It's all about volume, volume, volume and less about what people want.
The bottom line here is we should get used to the fact that good news coming out of Detroit will only arrive when moneylosing deals are thrown to customers. Right now the Big 3 are playing prevent defense just trying to survive the day. While they do that, Japan and even Korea for heaven's sakes, are running up the score on the legendary companies.
Hawk's View: I find the car industry fascinating (although I have a well known hatred of actually buying cars). Historically it has proven what is great about America. It is, to me, still what drives our economy. However, it is sad to see and industry that was once so great, be run as if it is taking cues from the Soviet Union central planning office. Detroit needs to get sober and find a middle ground with the Unions that will get costs in line. If it can't be negotiated than it may be time for a reorg to get this great industry back in the game.
The Motor City Madmen have once again reached a new low when it comes to selling cars. They are all so desperate to keep factories running so pension and health care costs can be met that they must churn out cars or perish. Yes, in the short run things will look good. However, the issue on the table has not changed - people still think Detroit still makes blah cars. The blip that all three will see in the short run will wear off quickly and they will all return back from Dreamland.
Throw out heavy trucks and a couple of models by GM (Cadillac) and Chrysler/Dodge and Detroit is still giving us a little better version of the cars we saw in Michael Moore's well done 1985 epic Roger and Me. Design, quality and marketing still win the war.
However, Detroit is not built that way. So hamstrung by concessions they have given to the UAW over the years, the Big 3 have a cost obligation that has completely dominated their scope for the better part of 15 years. It's all about volume, volume, volume and less about what people want.
The bottom line here is we should get used to the fact that good news coming out of Detroit will only arrive when moneylosing deals are thrown to customers. Right now the Big 3 are playing prevent defense just trying to survive the day. While they do that, Japan and even Korea for heaven's sakes, are running up the score on the legendary companies.
Hawk's View: I find the car industry fascinating (although I have a well known hatred of actually buying cars). Historically it has proven what is great about America. It is, to me, still what drives our economy. However, it is sad to see and industry that was once so great, be run as if it is taking cues from the Soviet Union central planning office. Detroit needs to get sober and find a middle ground with the Unions that will get costs in line. If it can't be negotiated than it may be time for a reorg to get this great industry back in the game.
News Corp's Family Feud
Today the Wall Street Journal featured a cover story on the sudden resignation of Lachlan Murdoch - Rupert Murdoch's son-in-waiting at News Corp.
The money on the table was Lachlan was likely to take over after his father leaves the earth sometime in the next 20 years. His resignation to "spend more time with his family" rings hollow to some who think that the real reason Lachlan is heading back Down Under is because there is a growing rift between the Old Man and his four eldest children.
Turns out that theory may be true. According to the Journal, there is a serious family feud brewing between Rupert's original family (4 grown children) and the new family (a thirtysomething wife with 2 young children). Apparently Rupert and his wife are changing around the family trust which is seriously diluting the inheritance (and power) the older children were said to be expecting to reap.
Apparently this spat and Rupert's constant meddling in Lachlan's affairs (he was COO of News Corp prior to his resignation) were to much for the lad. He chose to go the route of Rupert's two older daughters who have fled News Corp. Only Harvard drop-out and current bSkyb CEO James remains in the Empire. He is now the new leader in the clubhouse in the CEO sweepstakes.
Only don't be so sure. Another angle that has not been addressed is that Rupert's "publicly traded" company may end up in the hands of an outsider after he leaves. Specifically current president Peter Chernin. Rupert has said he wants his children to take over the company but only James remains (unless Rupert hangs around for another 20 years in time for either daughters Grace or Chloe - 2 and 3 respectively to take over). Another prospect - perish the thought - is that current wife Wendi Deng takes over (she was a former News Corp exec in Asia). Either way this promises to play out like one of Fox's insufferable reality shows.
Hawk's View: The Feud will be the stuff only the tabloids can love (maybe even one of Rupert's own rags will get the scoop) but investors should not fret the issue. At his heart the conservative Murdoch is a true capitalist. News Corp will not suffer a negative backlash from a family issue (unlike Cablevision). The Hawk believes in the bloke from Australia and will continue to ride his less-than-significant investment in News Corp. At $17 a share it's a bargain, family feud or not.
The money on the table was Lachlan was likely to take over after his father leaves the earth sometime in the next 20 years. His resignation to "spend more time with his family" rings hollow to some who think that the real reason Lachlan is heading back Down Under is because there is a growing rift between the Old Man and his four eldest children.
Turns out that theory may be true. According to the Journal, there is a serious family feud brewing between Rupert's original family (4 grown children) and the new family (a thirtysomething wife with 2 young children). Apparently Rupert and his wife are changing around the family trust which is seriously diluting the inheritance (and power) the older children were said to be expecting to reap.
Apparently this spat and Rupert's constant meddling in Lachlan's affairs (he was COO of News Corp prior to his resignation) were to much for the lad. He chose to go the route of Rupert's two older daughters who have fled News Corp. Only Harvard drop-out and current bSkyb CEO James remains in the Empire. He is now the new leader in the clubhouse in the CEO sweepstakes.
Only don't be so sure. Another angle that has not been addressed is that Rupert's "publicly traded" company may end up in the hands of an outsider after he leaves. Specifically current president Peter Chernin. Rupert has said he wants his children to take over the company but only James remains (unless Rupert hangs around for another 20 years in time for either daughters Grace or Chloe - 2 and 3 respectively to take over). Another prospect - perish the thought - is that current wife Wendi Deng takes over (she was a former News Corp exec in Asia). Either way this promises to play out like one of Fox's insufferable reality shows.
Hawk's View: The Feud will be the stuff only the tabloids can love (maybe even one of Rupert's own rags will get the scoop) but investors should not fret the issue. At his heart the conservative Murdoch is a true capitalist. News Corp will not suffer a negative backlash from a family issue (unlike Cablevision). The Hawk believes in the bloke from Australia and will continue to ride his less-than-significant investment in News Corp. At $17 a share it's a bargain, family feud or not.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Dam The People
One of my favorite things to read about these days is the building of the Three Gorges Dam in China. When completed the dam will the world's largest and will free the Chinese people from the perils of the ravenous Yangtze River which has for years been a pox on the lives of those who lived near it.
The dam is not without its doubters. Naysayers ranges from environmentalists who claim the dam will fill up with silt and overflow, to geologists who are concerned that the dam is being built on a fault line to Amnesty International who is upset with how China is "moving" citizens out of the dam area.
They all may be right in their concerns but the one that sticks out to me right now is the issue with how China is treating the peasants living near the dam area. On the outside the government is claiming they are being careful and considerate with moving their citizens but what is happening is not the case. People are being forced out without compensation, some violently, and there is very little that can be done about that.
Or maybe not. The link in the article reads about how peasants are starting to fight back. Despite being outgunned and outmanned they are definitely no longer going quietly into the night.
This does not bode well for the "other China." The China we read all about talks about how the economic growth is something we have never witnessed in our lives. While that maybe true there are in fact two China's. The one we read about and the one that lives in almost medievel conditions. The fact that the second China is rising up and demanding better treatment is alarming to the overall stability of the country. There are a lot more poor people then well off people in the country. If the poor continue to fight back it might become even a bigger issue.
Hawk's View: I think that China's problems with their poorest citizens is the elephant in their room of progress. Yes they have a gifted and industrious society. But they also have what amounts to a new age feudal system and that does not sit well. Look for the issues to get much worse before they begin to get better. And also look for the dam to be an environmental nightmare.
www.threegorgesprobe.org
The dam is not without its doubters. Naysayers ranges from environmentalists who claim the dam will fill up with silt and overflow, to geologists who are concerned that the dam is being built on a fault line to Amnesty International who is upset with how China is "moving" citizens out of the dam area.
They all may be right in their concerns but the one that sticks out to me right now is the issue with how China is treating the peasants living near the dam area. On the outside the government is claiming they are being careful and considerate with moving their citizens but what is happening is not the case. People are being forced out without compensation, some violently, and there is very little that can be done about that.
Or maybe not. The link in the article reads about how peasants are starting to fight back. Despite being outgunned and outmanned they are definitely no longer going quietly into the night.
This does not bode well for the "other China." The China we read all about talks about how the economic growth is something we have never witnessed in our lives. While that maybe true there are in fact two China's. The one we read about and the one that lives in almost medievel conditions. The fact that the second China is rising up and demanding better treatment is alarming to the overall stability of the country. There are a lot more poor people then well off people in the country. If the poor continue to fight back it might become even a bigger issue.
Hawk's View: I think that China's problems with their poorest citizens is the elephant in their room of progress. Yes they have a gifted and industrious society. But they also have what amounts to a new age feudal system and that does not sit well. Look for the issues to get much worse before they begin to get better. And also look for the dam to be an environmental nightmare.
www.threegorgesprobe.org
Friday, June 17, 2005
Senator Byrd Fesses Up
There's a new book coming out by Senator Robert Byrd (D) West Virginia. The book chronicles Byrd's life growing up in the coal mines of his home state and his rise to power in the United States Senate.
To its credit the book discusses Byrd's turn in the Ku Klux Klan during the early 1940s. Byrd even credits his time in the KKK as his catalyst for entering politics. He won his local election to be "Immortal Cyclops" and was known as one of the best recruiters in the state.
When Byrd ran for office in 1946 he was called on to the carpet for this time in the white hood. He claimed to have only spent parts of 1942 through 1943 in the group but there is evidence to suggest he hung around longer.
What really got me on this one was Byrd "spinning" the Klan as a sort of "Southern Rotary Club" and full of upstanding citizens like doctors and lawyers. That may be all well and good but calling the Klan a Southern Rotary club is like calling the Irish Republican Army a recreational paint ball team. It is just all a bunch of nonsense.
Hawk's View: Byrd was in the Klan and why I don't condone that one bit he claims he was not part of any violent acts. There is no evidence to suggest he was and I don't think he ever did. But what is a complete sham is his suggestion that it was more of a social club than a place to promote hate. Byrd's decision to leave the Klan was the moral choice, period. What is not moral is trying to sell us all on how the Klan was "different" back then. No it wasn't and all Byrd had to say was he realized his life was taking him down a path he didn't want to go and that's why he made the change. People can understand that reason, but like The Hawk, they can't understand the reason he gave.
To its credit the book discusses Byrd's turn in the Ku Klux Klan during the early 1940s. Byrd even credits his time in the KKK as his catalyst for entering politics. He won his local election to be "Immortal Cyclops" and was known as one of the best recruiters in the state.
When Byrd ran for office in 1946 he was called on to the carpet for this time in the white hood. He claimed to have only spent parts of 1942 through 1943 in the group but there is evidence to suggest he hung around longer.
What really got me on this one was Byrd "spinning" the Klan as a sort of "Southern Rotary Club" and full of upstanding citizens like doctors and lawyers. That may be all well and good but calling the Klan a Southern Rotary club is like calling the Irish Republican Army a recreational paint ball team. It is just all a bunch of nonsense.
Hawk's View: Byrd was in the Klan and why I don't condone that one bit he claims he was not part of any violent acts. There is no evidence to suggest he was and I don't think he ever did. But what is a complete sham is his suggestion that it was more of a social club than a place to promote hate. Byrd's decision to leave the Klan was the moral choice, period. What is not moral is trying to sell us all on how the Klan was "different" back then. No it wasn't and all Byrd had to say was he realized his life was taking him down a path he didn't want to go and that's why he made the change. People can understand that reason, but like The Hawk, they can't understand the reason he gave.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Our State Fair is Better Than Your State Fair...
I've noticed that my posts lately have been a little serious so I thought I would break that mold and lighten it up a bit today.
The Hawk can't believe it but a right of passage in the midwest is closer than it seems. Yes that's right the State Fair is nearby and as is every year there will be lots of new rides, exhibits and food on display.
Using my connections well within the halls of the state fair committee, The Hawk found out what the committee rejected this year. I can't believe these didn't make it...
Top 5 Rejected Games:
1. Pin-the-tail on the angry Alaskan Timberwolf
2. Name 10,000 lakes in Minnesota
3. Jart tossing
4. Spot the message of the DFL party
5. Amish cage match
Top 5 Rejected Exhibits
1. CarnieGrooming
2. Make your own Spam
3. In search of the reason of how Garrison Keillor became a star
4. The great literary works of Jesse Ventura
5. The terror in the fall: deer hunting from the deer's perspective
Despite the above, our state fair promises to be a rip roarin' fried foood eatin whale of a time. You won't want to miss it...
Hawk
The Hawk can't believe it but a right of passage in the midwest is closer than it seems. Yes that's right the State Fair is nearby and as is every year there will be lots of new rides, exhibits and food on display.
Using my connections well within the halls of the state fair committee, The Hawk found out what the committee rejected this year. I can't believe these didn't make it...
Top 5 Rejected Games:
1. Pin-the-tail on the angry Alaskan Timberwolf
2. Name 10,000 lakes in Minnesota
3. Jart tossing
4. Spot the message of the DFL party
5. Amish cage match
Top 5 Rejected Exhibits
1. CarnieGrooming
2. Make your own Spam
3. In search of the reason of how Garrison Keillor became a star
4. The great literary works of Jesse Ventura
5. The terror in the fall: deer hunting from the deer's perspective
Despite the above, our state fair promises to be a rip roarin' fried foood eatin whale of a time. You won't want to miss it...
Hawk
Monday, June 13, 2005
Jacko Moonwalks...
POST UPDATE: As I'm sure you have already heard/read, Michael Jackson moonwalked on all charges today in Santa Barbara. Jacko is now a free man.
While I was not in the jury, I do not see how this guy could get off on every charge (especially the serving of alcohol to a minor which he admitted to doing). In the end his behavior, while bizarre and questionable, was still a case of hearsay. My own opinion is that he did what he was charged with but I did not get to make that call.
While the case against Jackson is over, it is time we start a new campaign against the parents of these children. These sick, disgusting, pathetic people knowingly pimped out their children in a quest for a cash payout. The idea that someone would do that to their own child is beyond all rationale. In a perfect world, the parents would be behind bars.
Along with Jackson...
While I was not in the jury, I do not see how this guy could get off on every charge (especially the serving of alcohol to a minor which he admitted to doing). In the end his behavior, while bizarre and questionable, was still a case of hearsay. My own opinion is that he did what he was charged with but I did not get to make that call.
While the case against Jackson is over, it is time we start a new campaign against the parents of these children. These sick, disgusting, pathetic people knowingly pimped out their children in a quest for a cash payout. The idea that someone would do that to their own child is beyond all rationale. In a perfect world, the parents would be behind bars.
Along with Jackson...
Sunday, June 12, 2005
The Labor Movement Goes Silent
It's not easy these days being the member of a union. If you're in the automotive world, you're under siege from both GM and Ford to make concessions on your pension and benefit plans. If you're in the airline industry, you have the same worries along with the added benefit that every stinkin' carrier is either in bankruptcy or careening toward it.
America owes a lot to the labor movement (hey, they brought us the weekend). Without them we might still be lorded over by a nation of Montgomery Burns' from The Simpsons. They came along at a time when America needed a voice for the working man (sorry for the sexist writing ladies, but that's who was working back then). The ability to bargain collectively brought the working man into the middle class and provided good lives for millions of American families.
Today the tale is not as cheery. The global economy has commoditized so much of the so-called "skilled labor" that it is difficult for nation's who have a vibrant "blue collar" class to compete. Case in point: A UAW worker makes over $36.00 an hour in pay/benefits while a Chinese worker makes around $1.70 an hour. That is a shocking disparity.
In fact it makes you wonder how we can even save the cause for the working stiff. What good is the ability to bargain collectively when you can be outsourced for amazing cost savings?
As a result unions are finding themselves under immense pressure not just from management to give concessions but from competition. In fact, Northwest Airlines is reportedly putting out ads on Monster.com to for flight attendents (needed in case of a strike). That same airline is toying with the idea of outsourcing mechanic work overseas to save money as well.
All of this adds up to critical diagnosis for America's trade unions. What can they do to save themselves and their cause?
Hawk's View: Never underestimate an American with his/her back against the wall. Unions came about because of unfair treatment and they can reinvent themselves again using that same mentality. I don't pretend to have the answer, although I think a tighter union/management partnership with the union having more ownership of the company than they do now could help, but somebody needs to be this centuries John L. Lewis. Without leadership that promotes competition, instead of protecting, is at least a start in the road to winning the day. If the trade unions continue their stance of protectionism they will go the way of the dodo.
America owes a lot to the labor movement (hey, they brought us the weekend). Without them we might still be lorded over by a nation of Montgomery Burns' from The Simpsons. They came along at a time when America needed a voice for the working man (sorry for the sexist writing ladies, but that's who was working back then). The ability to bargain collectively brought the working man into the middle class and provided good lives for millions of American families.
Today the tale is not as cheery. The global economy has commoditized so much of the so-called "skilled labor" that it is difficult for nation's who have a vibrant "blue collar" class to compete. Case in point: A UAW worker makes over $36.00 an hour in pay/benefits while a Chinese worker makes around $1.70 an hour. That is a shocking disparity.
In fact it makes you wonder how we can even save the cause for the working stiff. What good is the ability to bargain collectively when you can be outsourced for amazing cost savings?
As a result unions are finding themselves under immense pressure not just from management to give concessions but from competition. In fact, Northwest Airlines is reportedly putting out ads on Monster.com to for flight attendents (needed in case of a strike). That same airline is toying with the idea of outsourcing mechanic work overseas to save money as well.
All of this adds up to critical diagnosis for America's trade unions. What can they do to save themselves and their cause?
Hawk's View: Never underestimate an American with his/her back against the wall. Unions came about because of unfair treatment and they can reinvent themselves again using that same mentality. I don't pretend to have the answer, although I think a tighter union/management partnership with the union having more ownership of the company than they do now could help, but somebody needs to be this centuries John L. Lewis. Without leadership that promotes competition, instead of protecting, is at least a start in the road to winning the day. If the trade unions continue their stance of protectionism they will go the way of the dodo.
Friday, June 10, 2005
NYC Drops the Baton on The Olympics
On Wenesday New York saw its quest for the Olympics come to a crashing halt. The coveted West Side Stadium project (championed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg) was shot down by a special committee. The Stadum was the catalyst in New York's 2012 Olympic bid. It was also to be used for the New York Jets football team as well as host the 2010 Super Bowl.
Now that is all over. While The Hawk feels that New York losing the Olympics is really not a huge deal (they're New York, they don't need the extra tourism dollars) he does see it as a sign as to how much the "machine" politics of major urban areas has changed over the years.
For decades towns like New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington DC, etc were run by political machines that were essentially city-state fiefdoms. The mayors in these towns could make anything happen and were seen almost as urban royalty. Heck, the Daley Dynasty in Chicago even delivered the 1960 election for John Kennedy.
These machines could make any miracle happen. If a town like New York wanted to host the Olympics in the 1950s, it would have been done. A stadium would have been built and the city would be cheering its construction.
Clearly these days are over. NYC's inability to get a stadium done was one of the final nails in the coffin of machine politics. The current climate does not allow for fiefdoms to flourish. 24/7 media and proliferation of the Internet allow the little guy to get their message out to the masses. Mobilization is easier and getting that message out is a snap. The challenges New York faced in this stadium battle were probably no different than decades past, except the opponents were now able to get their message out.
Now the US is out of the running for 2012 (we wouldn't have gotten it anyway, Paris was clearly the leader in the clubhouse). Mayor Bloomberg feels NYC let down the country and that New York is no longer a place where "things can get done."
Hawk's View: The Mayor's line of thinking is simply misguided. The city voted down the stadium because it was a bad business deal and they in turn shot down the Olympics because having them would probably be a detriment to the city. The Mayor's real reason for being despondent over the stadium defeat should be rooted in the fact that machine politics can no longer get whatever it wants. While that's bad for the Mayor it is good for America. We call that Democracy...
Now that is all over. While The Hawk feels that New York losing the Olympics is really not a huge deal (they're New York, they don't need the extra tourism dollars) he does see it as a sign as to how much the "machine" politics of major urban areas has changed over the years.
For decades towns like New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington DC, etc were run by political machines that were essentially city-state fiefdoms. The mayors in these towns could make anything happen and were seen almost as urban royalty. Heck, the Daley Dynasty in Chicago even delivered the 1960 election for John Kennedy.
These machines could make any miracle happen. If a town like New York wanted to host the Olympics in the 1950s, it would have been done. A stadium would have been built and the city would be cheering its construction.
Clearly these days are over. NYC's inability to get a stadium done was one of the final nails in the coffin of machine politics. The current climate does not allow for fiefdoms to flourish. 24/7 media and proliferation of the Internet allow the little guy to get their message out to the masses. Mobilization is easier and getting that message out is a snap. The challenges New York faced in this stadium battle were probably no different than decades past, except the opponents were now able to get their message out.
Now the US is out of the running for 2012 (we wouldn't have gotten it anyway, Paris was clearly the leader in the clubhouse). Mayor Bloomberg feels NYC let down the country and that New York is no longer a place where "things can get done."
Hawk's View: The Mayor's line of thinking is simply misguided. The city voted down the stadium because it was a bad business deal and they in turn shot down the Olympics because having them would probably be a detriment to the city. The Mayor's real reason for being despondent over the stadium defeat should be rooted in the fact that machine politics can no longer get whatever it wants. While that's bad for the Mayor it is good for America. We call that Democracy...
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Jackson Faces the Man in the Mirror
As a rule I try to avoid writing about all things Hollywood for several reasons. One, I find that as an industry it is incredibly overrated and two, I find the players involved to be wholly shallow, self-centered and not the least bit interesting.
But I make an exception to this when the topic comes to Michael Jackson. Yes, like most Americans, Jacko has become a bit of a tragic figure to me. The trial that he is currently mired in is for charges that, if true, are incredibly heinous and unacceptable. However that trial is not why I am writing today.
I'm writing because I am wondering aloud how one man can be in such a dire financial situation after making so much money. Jackson was THE ultimate talent of the early 80's racking up impressive sales and expanding his own personal brand into an international sensation.
But the success clearly was not a tonic for Jackson's main issue: his feeling of self loathing. Despite fame, fortune and adulation, Jackson went from a talented legendary talent into a walking freakshow. Along the way he made a vast fortune and now appears to have lost it all.
In yesterday's Wall Street Journal it was reported that Jacko is on the hook for $270M in loans. His situation is so dire that he will probably have to sell some or all of his 50% share in Sony/ATV music (a music catalog that includes most of The Beatles recordings).
How a man could fall this far, spend so much money is beyond the thought process of rational humans. However that is the point in all of this. Jackson is not rational. He's not because he was forced into Showbiz at a young age by an overbearing father and became the family breadwinner. Once he finally broke free of the family in the late 70's and found success, his issues with his childhood rose to the surface and he started his sad pathetic journey to the life he has today.
Now he's broke and owes more money than a third world government. His immense talent wasted, his life a shambles. If convicted Jackson will lose everything (and still might even if acquitted).
Hawk's View: The sad case of Jackson is yet another of celebrity gone bad. It is a reminder of how superficialness in life tends to lead to a life that is unfulfilling. I don't feel sorry for Jackson for what he has become. However, I do feel that his fall from grace is a lesson to all of us.
But I make an exception to this when the topic comes to Michael Jackson. Yes, like most Americans, Jacko has become a bit of a tragic figure to me. The trial that he is currently mired in is for charges that, if true, are incredibly heinous and unacceptable. However that trial is not why I am writing today.
I'm writing because I am wondering aloud how one man can be in such a dire financial situation after making so much money. Jackson was THE ultimate talent of the early 80's racking up impressive sales and expanding his own personal brand into an international sensation.
But the success clearly was not a tonic for Jackson's main issue: his feeling of self loathing. Despite fame, fortune and adulation, Jackson went from a talented legendary talent into a walking freakshow. Along the way he made a vast fortune and now appears to have lost it all.
In yesterday's Wall Street Journal it was reported that Jacko is on the hook for $270M in loans. His situation is so dire that he will probably have to sell some or all of his 50% share in Sony/ATV music (a music catalog that includes most of The Beatles recordings).
How a man could fall this far, spend so much money is beyond the thought process of rational humans. However that is the point in all of this. Jackson is not rational. He's not because he was forced into Showbiz at a young age by an overbearing father and became the family breadwinner. Once he finally broke free of the family in the late 70's and found success, his issues with his childhood rose to the surface and he started his sad pathetic journey to the life he has today.
Now he's broke and owes more money than a third world government. His immense talent wasted, his life a shambles. If convicted Jackson will lose everything (and still might even if acquitted).
Hawk's View: The sad case of Jackson is yet another of celebrity gone bad. It is a reminder of how superficialness in life tends to lead to a life that is unfulfilling. I don't feel sorry for Jackson for what he has become. However, I do feel that his fall from grace is a lesson to all of us.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
NightmareWorks Faces a New Ogre: Wall Street
On Friday, Dreamworks SKG (the brainchild of Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg) got its first taste of life as a public company: they got sued.
Yes, apparently those pesky shareholders who bought into the vision of the three amigos were a bit miffed by Dreamworks huge quarterly profit miss. The miss was due to the major wiff job Shrek 2 had in the DVD market.
OK, in fairness I should restate that last sentence. The miss was due to Dreamworks horrific forecasting and expecations of Shrek 2 in the DVD market. The video itself did not do too poorly, it was the expectations that Katzenberg and team led their shareholders to believe that was the problem. To sum it up, here's what happened...
1. Katzenberg travels all over the world promoting that Shrek 2 will be bigger than cold fusion
2. Dreamworks floods the market with copies of the movie
3. The movie debuts in the DVD market to huge numbers (Katzenberg figures he'll get 33% of total sales in the first week)
4. Ooops, turns out new titles are burning out much faster (around 50% of sales are done in the first week). Note to Jeffrey: pick up a Video Business magazine once in a while, even I knew that one.
5. Because of their inability to understand the DVD market as it actually is (versus how they want it) Dreamworks is flooded with returns.
6. The returns and lack of sales equal a huge miss in profit expectations (25% miss). Stock takes a dive.
7. Dreamworks gets sued.
OK, here's the deal, yes businesses make mistakes, but what they don't do is forget to WARN Wall Street about a potential miss. Dreamworks screwed up big time by not letting The Street know what was going on with Shrek 2. The Street found out when the rest of us in the Proletariot did (that's never good) and responded accordingly.
Shareholders, feeling that past guidance given by management was clearly misguided, got the shaft and responded in the only way they know how: via a class action lawsuit.
Hawk's View: The bottom line is Katzenberg's hubris got in the way. This is no longer a private company. The public has a huge interest and a right to know what is going on. Dreamworks board and CEO should have taken a more conservative approach in announcing the expectations of Shrek. Katzenberg is an animator and creator at heart. He should not be the face of the company when it comes to giving a financial view to The Street. Look for current CEO Richard Enrico to take a bigger role in the future and look for Dreamworks to write a check to the angry shareholders.
Yes, apparently those pesky shareholders who bought into the vision of the three amigos were a bit miffed by Dreamworks huge quarterly profit miss. The miss was due to the major wiff job Shrek 2 had in the DVD market.
OK, in fairness I should restate that last sentence. The miss was due to Dreamworks horrific forecasting and expecations of Shrek 2 in the DVD market. The video itself did not do too poorly, it was the expectations that Katzenberg and team led their shareholders to believe that was the problem. To sum it up, here's what happened...
1. Katzenberg travels all over the world promoting that Shrek 2 will be bigger than cold fusion
2. Dreamworks floods the market with copies of the movie
3. The movie debuts in the DVD market to huge numbers (Katzenberg figures he'll get 33% of total sales in the first week)
4. Ooops, turns out new titles are burning out much faster (around 50% of sales are done in the first week). Note to Jeffrey: pick up a Video Business magazine once in a while, even I knew that one.
5. Because of their inability to understand the DVD market as it actually is (versus how they want it) Dreamworks is flooded with returns.
6. The returns and lack of sales equal a huge miss in profit expectations (25% miss). Stock takes a dive.
7. Dreamworks gets sued.
OK, here's the deal, yes businesses make mistakes, but what they don't do is forget to WARN Wall Street about a potential miss. Dreamworks screwed up big time by not letting The Street know what was going on with Shrek 2. The Street found out when the rest of us in the Proletariot did (that's never good) and responded accordingly.
Shareholders, feeling that past guidance given by management was clearly misguided, got the shaft and responded in the only way they know how: via a class action lawsuit.
Hawk's View: The bottom line is Katzenberg's hubris got in the way. This is no longer a private company. The public has a huge interest and a right to know what is going on. Dreamworks board and CEO should have taken a more conservative approach in announcing the expectations of Shrek. Katzenberg is an animator and creator at heart. He should not be the face of the company when it comes to giving a financial view to The Street. Look for current CEO Richard Enrico to take a bigger role in the future and look for Dreamworks to write a check to the angry shareholders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)