Subscribe to this blog in Radio:
E-mail this blog's author, Martin Marprelate:  |
|
 |
Thursday, March 13, 2003 |
Blood for Oil?
It’s not just a stupid ant-war slogan anymore… thanks to the investigative reporting of Sy Hersh has linked Richard Perle’s activities as intellectual god-father of this war and war profiteer. The closing paragraph follows, but the whole thing is right here – including how he’s tried to shake down the Saudis and how his “cover” for his illicit business activities was inadvertently as the “Saddam exile” story reported a while back.
When Perle was asked whether his dealings with Trireme might present the appearance of a conflict of interest, he said that anyone who saw such a conflict would be thinking “maliciously.” But Perle, in crisscrossing between the public and the private sectors, has put himself in a difficult position—one not uncommon to public men. He is credited with being the intellectual force behind a war that not everyone wants and that many suspect, however unfairly, of being driven by American business interests. There is no question that Perle believes that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do. At the same time, he has set up a company that may gain from a war. In doing so, he has given ammunition not only to the Saudis but to his other ideological opponents as well.
8:21:47 PM 
|
|
Always good for a laugh…
…click here
8:00:43 PM
|
|
Guess we’ll be "Pre-empting" Russia Next
Imagine… torturing your own people (no, really, not just with syntax).
Guess Cowboy Shane/Bush better saddle up and ride.
But no, this is a case for “quiet diplomacy” (aka nothing – not even a diplomatic protest).
‘Cause Russia can hit back.
Where oh where did the moral clarity go?
Chechens claim Russians blow up corpses
By Sarah Karush
March 13, 2003 | MOSCOW (AP) -- Aslan Dzhabrailov says he wasn't supposed to be seen again, dead or alive. He says Russian troops in Chechnya dragged him from his bed last month and tortured him, then ignited explosives under him and his dead brother, apparently to erase the evidence. Had the explosives gone off, the men's remains would have been unrecognizable. In what would be a grisly twist to the pattern of alleged military abuses in Chechnya's 3 1/2-year war, residents and human rights campaigners say fragments of blown-up bodies are being found all over the war-ruined region.
Rather than put a stop to human rights violations, the military appears to be doing its best to hide them, critics say. Some even see signs of a coordinated campaign of killing Chechens.
"Lately, near a pipeline not far from our village, (Chechen) policemen have been finding people's blown-up remains," said Murzabek Saidulayev of Belgatoi, about 18 miles south of Grozny, the capital. "That's where the federals (troops) like to blow up corpses. They drive there in armored personnel carriers."
Lawmaker and rights campaigner Sergei Kovalyov theorizes that the intent is to make it difficult for independent investigators to connect the corpses to the soldiers who allegedly arrested them. Bodies blown up beyond recognition can more easily be blamed on the rebels, he says.
Kovalyov traveled to the United States and Britain last month to press for action, but was told ``quiet diplomacy'' was preferable. He says that isn't working.
President Vladimir Putin and other officials have repeatedly called on troops to obey the law during security sweeps that civilians say often lead to disappearances.
Last year the military ordered arresting troops to fully identify themselves and inform relatives of detainees' whereabouts. But rights advocates say the order is ignored and most likely meant to appease critics.
The pattern of blown-up bodies, and the fact that remains of people from different parts of Chechnya are found in the same place, point to a centralized system of violence, Kovalyov said.
"What comes to mind immediately are death squads. ... The question of genocide could be raised," he added.
Igor Botnikov, a Kremlin spokesman on Chechnya, scoffed at the charges, saying he would "leave those words on Mr. Kovalyov's conscience."
Asked if the charges were worth checking, he said all allegations of military abuse are investigated.
Independent verification is impossible because violence and government restrictions prevent Western journalists from working unimpeded in Chechnya.
Dzhabrailov, 23, spoke to The Associated Press on condition his location not be revealed because he feared reprisals. The details of his story match the patterns Kovalyov's allies at the Russian human rights group Memorial have documented.
His head bandaged and his face covered in bruises, Dzhabrailov said masked troops stormed his house in the village of Pobedinskoye, 9 miles west of Grozny, at dawn on Feb. 16. They pulled him and his brother Valid, 30, from their beds, and -- ignoring the pleas of their mother and sister -- handcuffed them, put sacks over their heads and drove for about an hour until they heard gates opening.
He said he heard helicopters and believed he was at Khankala, the military's main base in Chechnya.
Dzhabrailov was separated from his brother and brought to a basement, where he remained chained to a pipe for a day and a half. Masked men visited him periodically, jabbing his kidneys with guns and breaking his nose with flashlights.
They demanded Dzhabrailov confess to having fought with the rebels. Dzhabrailov said he was never involved in fighting.
In the evening, he said, an unmasked man came, silently put a bag over Dzhabrailov's head and led him to a vehicle.
"A cold, dead body lay under me," he said.
After a long ride, the men removed the corpse from the truck and dragged Dzhabrailov onto the ground, his head still covered. He said he heard a shot and a bullet took off some skin above his ear.
Dzhabrailov said he heard the men put something underneath him and the corpse and light it with a cigarette lighter.
Then the truck left, and Dzhabrailov freed himself and extinguished the lit fuse.
He looked at the corpse next to him and recognized his brother's mangled body by his clothes.
7:39:59 PM
|
|
Nightly News Pre-empted
Just heard on the airwaves that we might pre-emptively attack Iraq so that it can’t pre-emptively prepare for our pre-emptive war. So it’s really their fault for forcing us to pre-empt them by preparing for our pre-emption.
Of course it was news-read on the air by the talking head saying breathlessly “our sources in intelligence say Saddam [never Iraq… must please the bushies] may launch a pre-emptive attack.”
What would this “pre-emptive attack” consist of? Wiring the oil wells with explosives, putting artillery in useful positions, same for SCUDs (that is “if he has them” *pant*).
Wow, what a surprise… why didn’t they list positioning of sandbags and machine guns while they were at it? This is Iraq’s “attack”?
Yet we may be “forced” to invade the oil fields throughout Iraq… as well as western Iraq… as well as southern Iraq to “pre-empt” this dastardly assault….
Of course that would mean we were engaged in war, but really, it’s just a pre-emption of his pre-emption!
He did it first!!
It’s his fault!!!
Waaahhhh!!!!!
7:30:51 PM
|
|
How Complicit is the Media with Bushies?
Read the following below (from the invaluable Jim Romenesko via Atrios).
Then ask yourself: are these the same people who went out of their way to try and railroad Clinton out of the white house?
Are these the same folks who trashed Gore for two years straight – and picked right up where they left off after his self-imposed exile?
Think they ever asked Gore to vet their quotes? Or Bill? Or Hillary? Or Kerry?
Heck, there are the very people who invented damaging quotes later attributed Democrats (“invented the internet” “love canal” “love story”) or splice together footage to make a straightforward statement sound nefarious (done with Hillary with regard to Rose law firm billing).
But when Bush lies about a “quote” – the whole trifecta “joke” – the media hardly utters a peep. He’s not a pathological liar, like Gore, after all….
Why the different standards?
Yup, your SCLM (So-Called Liberal Media) are like Santa’s elves – always at work….
From JONATHAN WEISMAN, Economics Writer, Washington Post:
In the wake of Seymour Hersh's open statements about the way the White House treats the press, I feel compelled to relate a personal story that illustrates how both the White House and the press have allowed manipulation of the printed word in Washington to get out of hand. This is a bit of a confession as well as an appeal to the White House and my fellow reporters to rethink the way journalism is practiced these days.
Recently, I was working on a profile of the now-departed chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, R. Glenn Hubbard. I dutifully went through the White House press office to talk to an administration economist about Hubbard's tenure, and a press office aide helpfully got me in touch with just the person I wanted. The catch was this: The interview would be off the record. Any quotes I wanted to put into the newspaper would have to be e-mailed to the press office. If approved, the quotation could be attributed to a White House official. (This has become fairly standard practice.)
Since the profile focused on Hubbard's efforts to translate relatively
arcane macroeconomic theory into public policy, the quote I wanted
referenced the president's effort to end the double taxation of dividends: "This is probably the most academic proposal ever to come out of an administration." The press office said it was fine, but the official wanted a little change. Instead, the quote was to read, "This is probably the purest, most far reaching economic proposal ever to come out of an administration." I protested that the point of the quote was the word "academic," so the quote was again amended to state, "This is probably the purest, most academic, most far reaching economic proposal ever to come out of an administration."
What appeared in the Washington Post was, "This is probably the purest, most academic ... economic proposal ever to come out of an administration." What followed was an angry denunciation by the White House press official, telling me I had broken my word and violated journalistic ethics.
I had, of course, violated journalistic ethics, by placing into quotation marks a phrase that was never uttered by the source, ellipses or no ellipses. I had also played ball with the White House using rules that neither I nor any other reporter should be assenting to. I think it is time for all of us to reconsider the way we cover the White House. If administration officials want to speak off the record, they are off the record. If they are on background as an administration official, I suppose that's the best we can expect. But the notion that reporters are routinely submitting quotations for approval, and allowing those quotes to be manipulated to get that approval, strikes me as a step beyond business as usual.
4:08:38 PM
|
|
Read this headline…
“Saddam gives money to Palestinian "martyr" families”
…and then ask yourself the following questions:
What other Arab nations give money (or allow it to be given) to families of Palestinian “martyrs”?
Any of our allies? Like Saudia Arabia? Egypt?
Why then is Iraq being singled out?
Because we are so appalled? (After all, this has been such a hot item is has caused us diplomatic difficulties – NOT.)
Or could it be because we need a cheap and easy justification for our “splendid little war” of conquest?
There’s that “librul” media at work again… always trying to cover for Junior.
1:54:22 PM
|
|
Gore Elected President?
A recent letter has asked me to expand on my comment that Gore was shown by the news consortium to actually have won the vote in Florida. Subsequent to 9/11 this finding was first delayed and then later released under misleading headlines and “analysis.”
How were the findings obscured? By focusing solely on the recount that Gore had asked for the media was able to say “Bush would have won” – but only under the restrictions of the very narrow recount Gore was asking for. It serves to highlight how “reasonable” Gore’s request was (insofar as not asking for what he was entitled to – a full recount - because of the “inconvenience” a full recount seemed to pose and to avert further enflaming a crisis situation)… and how very stupid it was – if you’re going to ask for a recount then ask for a full recount.
Under normal recount standards – recounting all votes, not just particular ones chosen under legal “deadline” pressure in order to expedite the process - Gore wins every time.
This is explained quite well by Lance de Haven-Smith (1st article below) and what Lance has to say is thoroughly backed up by the findings of the consortium summarized (somewhat awkwardly) in the second article.
The second article apparently counts one scenario for Bush twice (the initial FL Supreme Court order) and neglects to mention the decision by the judge overseeing the recount to mandate all ballots be counted. Of course this is merely “par for the course” given how the media has shucked and jived for the Bushies all along. (IIRC the initial report I read only discussed 8 scenarios in which Gore won 6.)
The reason why Gore wins was the number of “over-votes”: voters who’s intention is clearly to vote for a given candidate but mistakenly voted twice. For example, punching a hole for the candidate and then to make sure writing the same candidate’s name in.
So what is the point of an election – to count all the votes that can be determined or to only count some (under-votes, post-dated military ballots) and not others?
Clearly, it is the former. Under that standard GORE should be in the white house.
Of course none of this touches on the shenanigans behind the scenes:
- GOP operatives staging “spontaneous” riots to halt recounts,
- John Ellis calling the election for his cousin on Fox News [sic],
- Katherine Harris (appointed by Jeb to elections post and head of Bush’s Florida effort) contracting a Texas firm to purge voter rolls of “felons,”
- Theresa La Pore – registered GOPer until 1996 (when upon becoming elections supervisor she “switched” to Democrat – a switch since repudiated) creating the butterfly ballot, and finally
- the NAACP suit against the state of Florida concerning illegal road-blocks, intimidation and denial of the right to vote….
Yup, just a few loose ends….
And the amazing thing is Gore won the vote anyway… but the media and the Supreme Court had already decided who was "worthy" of occupying the white house and showed no compunction in taking the decision away from us.
Clearing up the election that won't die
By Lance deHaven-Smith
CONTRIBUTING COLUMNIST
Soon, Florida voters will have their first opportunity since the disputed 2000 presidential election to express their judgment about the performance of public officials who were responsible for administering the state's election laws before and during the election fiasco.
When the election controversy was unfolding, many rumors and accusations circulated about official wrongdoing, but time and information were insufficient, then, to assess their validity. Now, however, much more is known about what happened. Listed below are typical questions about the election, along with my best judgment on the answers.
Question: Who actually received the most votes in Florida's 2000 presidential election?
Answer: Al Gore. State election officials ultimately declared George W. Bush the winner by a margin of 537 votes, but during and after the election dispute, questions remained about the uncounted ballots of 175,010 voters, ballots that had been rejected by error-prone tabulating machines employed in many Florida counties. Confusion and conflict, much of it generated by partisan intrigue, prevented these ballots from being counted during the election controversy. However, in 2001 every uncounted ballot was carefully examined in a scientific study by the University of Chicago, which concluded that when all the votes were counted, more votes had been cast for Gore than for Bush.
Q: Why did some earlier post-election studies say just the opposite, that is, that Bush had actually won after all?
A: They did not really say this. They reported, instead, that Bush might have kept his lead if the manual recounts of machine-rejected ballots had been completed along the lines either requested by Gore or initially mandated by the Florida Supreme Court. In these recount scenarios, not all of the machine-rejected ballots would have been included. However, just before the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, the judge overseeing the final statewide recount was preparing to announce that the recount would cover all of the previously uncounted ballots.
Q: Are manual recounts inherently biased or subjective?
A: No. In any election, many discarded ballots contain votes that are completely unambiguous. Of particular importance in the 2000 election were the ballots on which a selection had been made from the list of candidates and then a name had also been printed in the space for write-ins. Although these "write-in overvotes" were automatically excluded by tabulating machines, they contained unambiguous and legally valid votes whenever the write-in candidate matched the candidate chosen from the list preceding it. In its comprehensive study of all the uncounted ballots, the University of Chicago found that these write-in overvotes heavily favored Gore.
Q: Why were more errors like this made by Democrats than by Republicans?
A: The social characteristics of Florida Democrats. The two groups making the most errors were African Americans and seniors, who are core constituencies of the Florida Democratic Party. Seniors probably made errors because of weak eyesight and other physical limitations caused by aging. African Americans may have made errors because of the anxiety they are likely to feel at the polls, where in the not-very-distant past they would have routinely faced threats, violence, police harassment, and worse.
Q: Why should ballots with mistakes on them have been counted at all?
A: The law required all discernible votes to be counted. Rejecting ballots only because they contain technical errors would have been a violation of Florida election law (Section 101.5614(5)).
Q: Did Florida officials faithfully execute the state's election laws?
A: No. The New York Times and The Washington Post discovered evidence that Florida's governor, secretary of state, and speaker of the House, all Republicans with close ties to George W. Bush, used their offices to manipulate the election controversy and secure Bush's victory. During the controversy, they collaborated either directly or through intermediaries with the legal and political advisers of George W. Bush to: (1) put pressure on the state's top law firms not to work for Gore; (2) bend the rules on absentee ballots to allow improperly marked absentee ballots to be counted; (3) block, stall or discredit manual recounts; and (4) create fears of a constitutional crisis so that the U.S. Supreme Court would intervene.
Q: Will changes to state election laws that were enacted in 2001 prevent the same problems from recurring?
A: No. In fact, the badly named Florida Election Reform Act is in many respects a step backward. It was enacted before the Times and the Post reported that Florida's public officials at the highest levels had collaborated with George W. Bush's advisers to block fair and proper execution of Florida's election laws. Consequently, the legislation focused on modernizing Florida's vote-casting and vote-tabulating equipment but failed to deal with the more serious problem of partisan corruption in the state's system of election administration.
Q: What can be done to assure that Florida's election system is administered properly to minimize voter confusion, count all valid votes, and reduce bias associated with race and age?
A: Amend the Florida Constitution. Florida elections are unlikely to be fair and accurate until their administration is constitutionally removed from the hands of partisan officials and prohibited from being biased against any groups of people who face special challenges when voting.
Gore wins under six of nine scenarios
Monday, November 12, 2001
The media consortium applied its ballot review to nine scenarios for recounting ballots. The first two attempt to model historical events as closely as possible. The others, while taking court and political party actions into consideration, are more hypothetical. All are based on two out of three reviewers agreeing about whether a mark occurs by a candidate's name.
If the U.S. Supreme Court hadn’t stopped the counting
Dec. 9 count/Counties' own standards -- Bush by 493
What might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn't stopped a hand count ordered by the state Supreme Court of all the state's under-votes. Scenario uses the results of the counties that actually finished their hand counts and, for those that didn't finish, applies the standards those counties planned to use. Also counts some over-votes in nine counties.
If the four counties Gore wanted to count had finished
Gore's four-county strategy -- Bush by 225
What might have happened if the four Democratic counties in which Al Gore sought hand counts had finished in time to be included in the state's certified vote total. Scenario adds the actual results of Palm Beach County and the 139 counted Miami-Dade precincts to the state certified total (which already includes Broward and Volusia). Consortium numbers are used only for the remaining Miami-Dade precincts. Ballots with one corner of a chad detached or better are considered votes.
If all counties agreed to use the standard acceptable to most
Statewide count/Prevailing standards -- Gore by 60
Applies to all counties the standard a majority of elections officials said they would accept as an indicator of voter intent, based on a survey by consortium members: a single-corner detached chad in punch-card counties and all "affirmative" marks in optical-scan counties. An affirmative mark is any mark that indicates voter intent, including a filled oval, another mark such as an X through the oval, circles or mark around or near the oval, and circles or marks around or near the candidate's name or party. Applied to all under- and over-votes statewide, except Volusia.
If the 63 counties ordered to count had used one standard Dec. 9
Dec. 9 count/Uniform standard-- Bush by 430
Dec. 9 again, but this time using the actual hand counts only from Palm Beach, Broward, Volusia and Miami Dade (139 precincts) and applying a uniform standard to only the under-votes in the other 63 counties and Miami-Dade's remaining precincts: one-corner detached on punch cards and all affirmative marks on optical-scan.
If the 63 counties ordered to count had used their own standards
Statewide count/Custom standard -- Gore by 171
Best guess at what an unrestricted statewide hand recount might have been. Uses actual hand counts from Broward and Volusia and consortium applies each county's own standard in other 65 counties.
If all counties had used the Gore standard
Statewide count/ Most inclusive standard -- Gore by 107
Any "dimpled chad or better" counts as vote in punch-card counties, and all affirmative marks in optical-scan counties.
If all counties had used the toughest standard
Statewide count/ Most restrictive standard -- Gore by 115
Counts only so-called "perfect" ballots that machines somehow missed, including fully punched chads and properly marked optical ballots that scanners could not read because of problems such as ink color, humidity and misalignment.
If all counties had used the Bush standard
Statewide count/Bush standard -- Gore by 105
Applies the standard generally accepted by George W. Bush's lawyers during the hand counts in the three punch-card counties where Gore sought counts: ballots with at least two corners of a chad detached. All affirmative marks accepted in optical-scan counties.v If all counties had used the Palm Beach County standard
Statewide count/ Palm Beach dimple rule -- Gore by 42
In punch-card counties, counts dimples as votes in the presidential race when dimples are also present in the U.S. Senate race or elsewhere on the ballot; otherwise accepts only two-corner detached standard. All affirmative marks in optical-scan. Based on Palm Beach County canvassing board's stated aim of accepting dimpled chads as presidential votes if the voter left dimple marks in other races on the ballot.
* The only scenario of the nine in which hand counts completed Dec. 9, as well as other ballot adjustments, are not included, because this scenario assumes no counts would have taken place outside the four counties.
** All statewide counts apply standards to all under-votes and over-votes. And because there was more than a 1 percent difference between Volusia County's certified number of under- and over-votes and the number it showed to the consortium, the consortium has chosen to use Volusia's certified count in all scenarios rather than the number the consortium reviewed.
1:17:16 PM
|
|
Stock Options Corruption Continues as SEC fiddles
Where are the “adults” on this one?
Oh yeah, counting their record-breaking campaign contributions.
No story here, just bury it on the business page…
Plan Restricting Stock Options Stalls at S.E.C.
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Last summer, when the tide of corporate scandal was at its height, a plan to give shareholders veto power over moves by companies to dole out stock options had nearly universal support. But with the scandals fading into the background, the proposal is now stalled at the Securities and Exchange Commission, which concedes that the rule will not go into effect in time for annual shareholder meetings this year.
In the meantime, directors of at least one big company, Texas Instruments, have approved the sort of big stock option plan that the proposal is intended to police. Some shareholder advocates — who object to investors' ownership being diluted when companies issue options in large volumes — worry that other companies, too, will rush new options plans onto their books, in case the rule goes into effect by the end of the year.
The rule, proposed in August by the New York Stock Exchange, would require companies whose shares are traded on the exchange to put all new stock option plans to a vote of their shareholders. The rule would also stop brokerage firms from voting the shares of customers who have not voted themselves. Such broker votes are always cast with management on matters that come up for a shareholder vote.
Institutional shareholders, especially those managing public pension funds, applauded the proposal, as did individual investors who filed comments with the S.E.C. Rocked by scandals at companies like Enron and WorldCom, they have become more alert to the complexities of corporate finance, including the ways that stock option plans can dilute their ownership stakes and mask the true costs of compensating employees.
Now, investor groups say that the S.E.C. has missed a big opportunity to arm shareholders as the annual meeting season begins.
"Executive pay and abuses in the stock option area are at the top of the reform punch list for investors, and this was the major fix that was being called for," said Patrick S. McGurn, special counsel to Institutional Shareholder Services, a shareholder advisory firm in Rockville, Md. "Now we're basically left with the status quo that produced some of the abuses that have come to light."
Just two weeks ago, at an Institutional Shareholder Services conference in Washington, Martin Dunn, senior associate director for the S.E.C.'s division of corporation finance, said that the rule's passage was imminent. The rule was formally submitted to the S.E.C. for approval on Oct. 6.
But yesterday, Christi Harlan, a spokeswoman for the commission, said that the rule was not ready for a vote — and in any event, would have to have been adopted by January to have given shareholders a voice in stock option plans this year.
"Realistically, it won't be done for this proxy season," Ms. Harlan said.
She explained that the commission had been busy putting into effect rules mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate oversight legislation passed by Congress last year. In addition, she said, it proved complicated to harmonize the New York Stock Exchange's proposal with a parallel set of rules submitted by the Nasdaq market. The markets set rules, subject to S.E.C. approval, for companies whose shares they trade.
According to people participating in the rule-making process, the actions of Nasdaq officials appear to have slowed the approval process.
Nasdaq's proposed rule on stock option plans is weaker than the Big Board's in several areas. For example, while the New York Stock Exchange proposal requires a shareholder vote when a company wants to assign new, lower exercise prices on previously granted options, Nasdaq's does not specifically require shareholder approval in such cases.
In addition, Nasdaq has not proposed requiring a shareholder vote when companies replace existing options whose exercise prices are well above the stock's current market level with new options carrying a lower exercise price. The New York Stock Exchange's rule would explicitly require a shareholder vote.
Bethany Sherman, a Nasdaq spokeswoman, declined to comment on the suggestion that Nasdaq was to blame for the delay in carrying out the rules. "In terms of repricing options and replacing underwater options, our position is shareholder approval should be required for any material amendments to existing plans," Ms. Sherman said. "And we'd consider repricing or replacing a material amendment."
Mr. McGurn said her comment seemed to reflect a change in Nasdaq's thinking. "That is not what they suggested to the S.E.C.," he said. "I applaud them if they are changing their interpretation, but that has been a point of resistance."
Early last June, the New York Stock Exchange first floated the idea of requiring shareholder votes on options and eliminating automatic broker votes, which help corporate executives maintain control over issues requiring shareholder approval. A study of last year's proxy season by the ADP Corporation, a big processor of proxy votes, found that 23 percent of votes on corporate proxies were cast by brokerage firms lacking instructions from the shareholders — and that every one of those votes supported management.
Initially, the proposals encountered heavy opposition from corporate lobbying groups. Members of the Business Roundtable, which represents chief executives of large United States corporations, called the proposals counterproductive and suggested that the Big Board "proceed incrementally in this area."
But a month later, with the WorldCom accounting scandal exploding onto the scene, opposition to any corporate reform measure intended to give shareholders more control over how companies were run became politically unacceptable.
Indeed, the S.E.C. seemed interested in pushing the rule through quickly, according to shareholder groups taking part in the process. For example, to prevent the rule on stock options from becoming bogged down among the wide array of corporate governance initiatives announced by the New York Stock Exchange last year, the commission asked the Big Board to put the stock option and broker vote matters into a separate rule that could sail through the commission's approval process.
The delay in adopting the new rules has left shareholder advocates perplexed.
"There have been so many documented abuses of equity compensation programs, not to give shareholders appropriate oversight is a disgrace," said Ann Yerger, deputy director of the Council of Institutional Investors, which represents pension funds and other large shareholders. "And it's a rule that easily should have been in place for this proxy season. I understand the S.E.C. has been busy with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, but we can't really fathom what the holdup is here."
With no rule in place, directors at Texas Instruments, the giant semiconductor maker, adopted a new, broad-based stock option plan in January that made 240 million shares available for issuance to lower-level employees. The options available under the plan equal 14 percent of the shares outstanding at the company.
"A lot of our competitor companies have similar types of plans," said Chris Rongone, a company spokeswoman. "And the feeling is that with the competitors all having many, many, many options out there reserved for future use, we needed to take action and stay competitive."
11:37:55 AM
|
|
This is nice but…
…how about addressing the issue that is front and center in everyone’s mind?
Hello?
WAR?!?
The Democrats have to criticize the criminal way in which this regime has endangered world peace and our own security.
Early and often.
If they don’t – for fear of the Resident’s “popularity” – they will be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy: without any contrary voices he will be popular.
This is just as sure as the fact that when presented with valid, thoughtful criticism (like the kind being generated overseas right now) Bush’s popularity will drop and his “invincibility” on foreign policy will shatter. It has already begun. Responsible foreign governments have already done the heavy lifting for the Dems – why can’t they take the hand-off?
You would have thought they would learn something from the elections last year – but apparently not.
Aaahrrrgggggg!!
Valid and vociferous criticism of Bush foreign policy would not only enhance their chances in ’04 –it would also help make this a safer, saner planet in the meanwhile…
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a George Washington University audience yesterday that American families are being damaged by what he termed the failed policies of the Bush administration.
In the latest of a series of speeches on major issues, the North Carolina senator said that White House tax proposals and budgetary cutbacks in after-school and student aid programs are adding to the burdens of overworked parents.
"Thanks to this administration's economic policies, Americans are working harder, making less and spending less time with their families," Edwards told several hundred students. "Thanks to its security policies, Americans are more frightened and less secure than they should be."
Edwards proposed a refundable tax credit of $2,500 to families with a newborn, enabling one or both parents to take time off to care for the new member of the family, to pay for child care or to meet new expenses. The senator said that the program could be financed with half the money that could be saved by canceling the Bush tax cuts for people with incomes exceeding $1 million.
Other suggestions were an expansion of after-school programs, pressure on the liquor industry to curb advertising to people younger than 21, and an expansion of efforts to move men off welfare into jobs and require them to make child support payments.
In a question-and-answer period, Edwards reiterated his support for administration efforts to secure U.N. backing for a second resolution on Iraq and said that he would support U.S. military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein if the United Nations fails to act.
11:16:45 AM
|
|
Bluster, Threats and Bribery
Those are the three basic components of US “diplomacy” under the Bushies.
No wonder they want the “diplomatic phase” of this war to be over!
Just read the following report and you will see:
- bluster regarding France,
- bribery regarding the three African nations on the Security Council (Guinea, Cameroon and Angola), and
- threats towards Russia.
No wonder the Bushies have been so successful!
U.S. blasts France's veto threat on Iraq
By Barry Schweid
March 13, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. officials say France is sending exactly the wrong message to Iraq's Saddam Hussein by threatening to veto a United Nations resolution that would order him to disarm immediately or face war.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Wednesday that the stand of French President Jacques Chirac is making it less likely Iraq can be disarmed peacefully and the White House suggested for the first time that voting against the resolution in the U.N. Security Council could damage a country's relationship with the United States.
France, along with Russia, have threatened to veto the resolution should it receive the nine Security Council votes necessary for approval.
"Unfortunately, President Chirac has said that no matter what, they're going to veto the resolution," Boucher said. "I suppose that factor needs to be taken into account by all those who are proceeding here.
"But, frankly, saying that he'll veto the resolution no matter what sends precisely the wrong signal to Baghdad, precisely the wrong signal for those who want peaceful disarmament," Boucher said.
Prospects for passage of a new Security Council resolution backing the use of force were uncertain Thursday even as the United States heads for a showdown at the United Nations by the end of the week.
However, the U.S. diplomatic campaign appeared to be making headway with three African countries.
The administration probably would seek a vote by the council on Friday, according to U.S. officials, although one senior administration official said the White House was not ruling out pulling the resolution or postponing the vote.
Needing the support of at least nine of the 15 members of the Security Council, the administration was concentrating on fence-sitters who could determine the fate of the resolution.
A senior U.S. official, speaking Wednesday on condition of anonymity, said there are strong indications the three African members, Angola, Cameroon and Guinea, would vote with the United States.
Foreign Minister Francois Fall of Guinea, a special target of the U.S. diplomatic drive, has at times given conflicting signals on how his country would vote.
Under separate consideration was a declaration proposed by Britain that seeks to establish "benchmarks" for Saddam to show he was prepared to disclose and destroy his weapons of mass destruction.
Some 270,000 U.S. and British troops are in the region to face an Iraqi army that's fewer than 400,000 soldiers and widely reported to be demoralized, poorly trained and inadequately equipped.
U.S. soldiers in the Kuwaiti desert stepped up preparations Wednesday, breaking out their chemical weapons suits for the first time and scheduling a joint battle rehearsal.
The resolution expected to come before the council would extend the deadline for Iraq to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction beyond the previously envisioned date of March 17, diplomats said.
The Bush administration has indicated it would support only a brief extension.
President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell telephoned world leaders to seek their support for the resolution.
Bush talked on Wednesday to Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia, Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo of the Philippines and Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates, and to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and Lithuanian President Rolandas Paksas.
Powell talked to British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Foreign Ministers Ana Palacio of Spain, Luis Ernesto Derbez of Mexico and Dominique de Villepin of France.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that if the resolution failed "there's no question that the president would be disappointed."
Declining to specify potential repercussions, Fleischer said: "The representatives of Congress think about these things. In all cases the president knows that we will continue to focus on issues where we have united values or the other issues on which we will work closely. But I can't predict every eventuality."
The U.S. ambassador to Moscow, Alexander Vershbow said a Russian veto of the resolution would damage Russia's economic and political interests.
11:02:23 AM
|
|
Bid to move goalposts rejects
That’s what the headline could have read. Instead they call it the British “compromise” plan.
In reality it was merely a last ditch attempt to get the UN to endorse something they felt sure Iraq would reject – just like the balsa flier crisis, just like the al samoud missiles, just like the reintroduction of inspectors - and therefore be a pretext for war.
Iraq has surprised the Bush and Blair by agreeing to all the demands above. Perhaps Bush and Blair wouldn’t have been so surprised (granted they would never have agreed to such) if they put 2 + 2 together:
- Iraq does not have a viable nuclear program (unlike, say, N. Korea or Iran)
- Iraq does not have viable delivery systems (no air force, no ICBMs)
- Iraq does not have very strong armed forces – period – following the Gulf war
So what is a dictator desperate to remain in power to do?
What he has done for the past 12 years: accede, grudgingly, to all the humiliations that the allies have demanded: random inspections, no fly zones, weekly bombing raids and what is essentially the partitioning of Iraq leaving him control of basically the greater urban area of Bagdad. This is no small thing – equivalent in size to LA at least – but hardly the basis for threatening Israel, never mind the US.
The factor that led the Bushies to select Iraq – its weakness – has proved to be the ultimate stumbling block to their plans, because it is Iraqi weakness that has compelled them to submit to all the requests so far.
I love irony (at least when it happens to someone else).
Iraq dismisses British compromise plan
Associated Press
March 13, 2003 | BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Iraq reveled Thursday in the diplomatic turmoil surrounding U.S.-led war plans and rejected British Prime Minister Tony Blair's effort to find a compromise over an ultimatum for Saddam Hussein.
Blair's proposal would abandon a proposed Monday deadline for Iraq to fully disarm or face war, instead giving Saddam a six-point to-do list of disarmament tasks to avoid "serious consequences."
Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said it amounted to the same thing.
"It is an attempt to beautify a rejected aggressive project," he told journalists.
"(Britain) is trying to polish this project, which has been rejected by the majority of Security Council members."
Asked whether Iraq opposed the British list, he said: "Of course. We reject any project contrary to resolutions already adopted by the Security Council."
"The United States, with its policy of aggression, wants international cover for this aggression," he added. "I don't think the United States will succeed."
France, which had threatened to veto the original Monday deadline, also rejected the British compromise because the list of disarmament requirements presumably would come with a short deadline.
Germany, a non-permanent Security Council member without veto power, said the plan was unlikely to yield a compromise because it still "basically gives an authorization for war."
The Bush administration insisted it was optimistic that it could pass an ultimatum this week, but that appeared increasingly unlikely.
Iraqi newspapers gloated over the turmoil.
"It is obvious that Bush and Blair have lost the round before it starts, while we, along with well intentioned powers in the world, have won it," the popular daily Babil, owned Saddam's son Odai, said in a front-page editorial.
"Blair's future is at stake now, and his downfall will be a harsh lesson in Britain's political history," it said.
Sabri said a high-level Arab peace mission that was scheduled to travel to Baghdad this week would not come, although he said Iraq had not rejected the visit.
"We did not refuse to receive the Arab committee," Sabri said. "They are coming not for tourism. They are coming for work, and this requires measures."
"We are trying to agree on a time appropriate for both sides," he added.
The Arab delegation had been scheduled to meet in Bahrain on Thursday with the Bahraini king, Sheik Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, and then travel Friday to the Iraqi capital. The Arab League decided to send the delegation to ask Saddam to cooperate further with inspectors in a bid to avert a war.
The United States pushed forward with war preparations, moving troops into place just south of Iraq. The U.N. mission that patrols the Iraq-Kuwait border said it would withdraw some of its observers to its headquarters in Kuwait.
Iraq prepared as well. At a military compound east of Baghdad, several dozen men from other Arab nations trained alongside Iraqi special forces. The men claimed Wednesday that thousands of men were in such camps across Iraq.
"We came to fight alongside our Iraqi brothers against the Americans and the Zionists (Israelis)," said a man from Syria who, like most others, refused to give his name.
"Today they attack Iraq. Tomorrow it will be Syria and the rest of the Arab nation," he said. "God willing, the soil of Iraq will be their graveyards."
The fighters lumbered through calisthenics and a simulated battle for the benefit of journalists. They demonstrated their weapons techniques after kneeling in prayer.
U.N. weapons inspectors returned Thursday to a military compound where Iraqis have been crushing Al Samoud 2 missiles, banned because they may fly farther than the 93 miles allowed by the United Nations.
Since March 1, Iraq has eliminated 58 of the missiles, from an arsenal of about 100. It also has destroyed 28 warheads, two casting chambers, two launchers and five engines associated with the Al Samoud 2 program.
Inspectors on Thursday also visited two rocket factories, a dumpsite for biological weapons and an ice cream plant, Iraq's Information Ministry said.
Inspectors said they interviewed an Iraqi involved in the unilateral destruction of chemical precursors on Wednesday. It was the 10th private interview since Iraq began pressuring scientists to grant them on Feb. 28. In the same period, five scientists have refused to grant interviews.
In another development, Iraq's Foreign Ministry announced a prisoner exchange deal with Iran. The ministry said Iran has agreed to release all prisoners from the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and Iraq will release all Iranians in its jails.
Iraq does not acknowledge holding Iranian prisoners of war, but said it would release Iranian common criminals.
About 1 million people were killed or wounded in the war, and although the neighboring countries have exchanged thousands of prisoners and remains of dead soldiers, considerable enmity remains. Each country accuses the other of harboring rebels opposed to its government.
10:50:24 AM
|
|
Welcome to the Ashcroft Era
Although the Atty. Gen. isn’t directly involved in this idiocy it is in keeping with his other “initiatives”: covering the statues of justice (because they are “immodest”), employing the forces of the FBI to arrest prostitutes New Orleans and raiding marijuana clinics and arresting wheel-chair bound folks with terminal illnesses.
Why is it when people protest racism or sexism it’s called an imposition of “political correctness” but when others protest – and censor – normal, healthy, even artistic expressions it is not called “political correctness”?
Guess I missed the memo on why the GOP is always right (but not “correct”) and vice versa for the Dems…
Mountain covers its "nipple"
Associated Press
March 13, 2003 |
LTA, Wyo. (AP) -- Pressure from uncomfortable skiers and other tourists has prompted the Grand Targhee Ski and Summer Resort to cover the second half of the name of one of its mountains.
Mary's Nipple is now just Mary's, and signs with the word "nipple" have been covered with tape. New signs were to arrive in about two weeks.
But the covered signs have rankled some local skiers, who feel a bit of their history has been lost.
"If the name changed, it wouldn't be the same," said Mark Franklin of Driggs, Idaho, who has skied the mountain for 26 years without feeling offended. "It's always been Mary's Nipple to me, and probably 99.9 percent of the people around here will agree with me."
The name dates back three decades to a story about a waitress named Mary, who was working at Targhee's Trap Bar and streaked through it and the resort one night. The U.S. Forest Service has never acknowledged it officially.
10:50:04 AM
|
|
|
