Ever since the Clinton impeachment saga of the late '90's, cable TV airways have offered a full menu of issue oriented news shows. What might have originally seemed like an effective vehicle for the audience to learn about complex issues of the day has instead turned into a cacophonous orgy of propaganda . Sebastian Jones exposed the insidiousness of the entire enterprise in this expose in the March 1 issue of The Nation.
Jones explains how many of the so called expert analysts brought on to address issues are really nothing more than paid mouthpieces for various corporate interests. The networks just don't bother to tell us the audience who exactly is buttering the proverbial bread for the guest experts.He goes on to point out that both sides of the ideological aisle are equal opportunity propagandists. In the end we the public lose. All too often that's been the outcome on numerous issues of the day. Jones nails it in the last paragraph of his piece:
Jay Rosen, a media critic and journalism professor at New York University, has a different take. "More disclosure is good--I'm certainly in favor of that--but why are these people on at all?" asks Rosen. "They have views and can manufacture opinions around any event at any time."
Rosen echoes something Brown mentioned to me. Watching cable news cover the 2008 election with more analysts crammed at one table than ever before--as if to ask, "How many people can we put on the set at one time?"--Brown said he was "amazed how little they had to offer." He went on, "We live in a time where there are no shortages of opinions and an incredible deficit of facts."
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
A CEO Who Gets It
The New York Times Sunday Business section usually runs a column entitled, Corner Office. It is basically a discussion with a top business executive and the subject matter deals with the challenges of leading and managing. I especially liked this past weeks edition. The interview was with Mark Pincus, the founder and chief executive of Zynga,a provider of online social games.
The entire column can be read here. Three things stood out for me in the interview:
1) What Pincus looks for in a hire:
3) How he manages
The entire column can be read here. Three things stood out for me in the interview:
1) What Pincus looks for in a hire:
2) What he looks for in leadersI keep my eye out for someone who has achieved a lot, so they’ve been
a great athlete or on a great team, but then something didn’t go quite right, and they’re still very hungry and want to be C.E.O. of something. I like to bet on people, especially those who have taken risks and failed in some way, because they have more real-world experience. And they’re humble. I also like to hire people into one position below where they ought to be, because only a certain kind of person will do that — somebody who is pretty humble and somebody who’s very confident.
This is another thing I really, really value: being a true meritocracy. The only way people will have the trust to give their all to their job is if they
feel like their contribution is recognized and valued. And if they see somebody else higher above them just because of a good résumé, or they see somebody else promoted who they don’t think deserves it, you’re done.
My approach is that you have to earn the respect of people you work with. And so, if you come in and you start bossing people around and they don’t want to work with you, they won’t. In our company, if you want to switch teams, you can. In hiring, it’s also a sign of a great manager when you tell me that there’s all these people
who want to come with you, or when you join us and we find other people are all sending us their résumés because you’re here.
3) How he manages
John Doerr [the venture capitalist] sold me on this idea of O.K.R.’s, which stands for objectives and key results. It was developed at Intel and used at Google, and the idea is that the whole company and every group has one objective and three measurable key results, and if you achieve two of the three, you achieve your overall objective, and if you achieve all three, you’ve really killed it.
We put the whole company on that, so everyone knows their O.K.R.’s. And that is a good, simple organizing principle that keeps people focused on the three things that matter — not the 10.
Then I ask everybody to write down on Sunday night or Monday morning what are your three priorities for the week, and then on Friday see how you did against them. It’s the only way people can stay focused and not burn out. And if I look at your road map and you have 10 priorities for you and your team, you probably don’t know which of the three matter, and probably none of the 10 are right.
I can look at everyone’s piece of paper, and their road map shows every item you were going to do and your predicted results and actual results, and then the results are in red if you missed them, yellow if they’re close and green if you passed them. I think road maps are a great principle just for managing your life. It keeps everybody focused, and it lets me know what trains are on or off the tracks.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
If Ben Bernanke Were an NFL Head Coach
At the end of every NFL season the pink slips come quickly. I think it was Jerry Glanville who once said that NFL stands for "not for long". That is especially true if you are a head coach with modest results. In the NFL modest results could mean winning as often as losing. A simple .500 record. This past week the US Senate offered a verdict on Ben Bernake's tenure as Chairman of the Federal Reserve and in my opinion their decision was the equivalent of bringing back a coach with multiple 5-11 and 4-12 seasons in his resume.
Am I being too harsh on Helicopter Ben the bubble blower? The video above, courtesy of my friends at The Daily Bail demonstrates Bernanke's fecklessness. It might be unfair not to assign equal blame to Ben's mentor and partner in money printing, Alan Greenspan, but Greenspan is off on the big money speech circuit now. Why anyone would be interested in what Greenspan has to say is another matter.
Prior to his stint at the Fed, Ben's claim to fame was that as a Princeton professor he was viewed by many academics as one of THE experts on the Great Depression. Think about it. The world's largest economy is in the hands of a guy who has no practical business experience.He has read a lot of books though. It's like making self-proclaimed NFL draft expert Mel Kiper Jr. head coach of your favorite franchise.
Two issues surrounding the Bernanke confirmation still perplex me. Why is Obama and fellow Dems defending and pushing forward the appointment ? The Republicans have largely abandoned support for Bernanke, yet he and his predecessor Greenspan are and were Republican administration appointees. Why take the heat for the other guys poor pick?
Why do we have this fairy tale belief that the Fed can somehow manage a multi-trillion dollar economy. Wasn't one of the great fallacies of the Soviet system this idea that you could somehow centrally plan a national economy. It's so easy for us to see the error of the Soviet's on this, yet we insist on believing that we can somehow do similar central coordinating via the Fed.Is it any wonder we have witnessed multiple bubbles and an almost total destruction of dollar purchasing power over the almost 100 years of the Fed's existence.
If these Fed Chiefs are going to "get credit" for saving the system, they need to be held accountable for setting the stage for the system to need saving in the first place. Being accountable does not mean a contract extension. I am very disappointed with the US Senate and the current Administration on this one. If Bernanke were my head coach he'd be looking for a new job.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Martha Coakley.... Good Riddance
I see the President is making a trip tomorrow to campaign for the Democratic Senate candidate in Massachusetts, Martha Coakley. This Senate race epitomizes everything wrong with our current system. Watch what goes on the next couple days. It will be political March Madness. The wackos on the left ( the DailyKos crew) and the wackos on the right ( the Hannityites) will be out in full force making this political race a major event for all of us.
This election is being portrayed as a referendum on Obama's first year in office --- and maybe it is, but really, if Obama is unable to push his agenda through the Congress, sans a Democrat in MA. and with a mere 59 votes in the Senate something is wrong. (I'm saying this as a supporter of universal health care-- I am not opposed to the agenda in principle).
Maybe I'm naive as I do expect the people who ask for the honor of representing "the people" to be true leaders in every sense of the word. With that being said, a big thanks to the Daily Bail for posting the recent Dorothy Rabinowitz article in the Wall Street Journal revisiting the Amirault case and Martha Coakley's role in that case.
This case was one of several sensational cases in the mid 80's of wild child molestation charges that bordered on the absurd:
The accusations against the Amiraults might well rank as the most astounding ever to be credited in an American courtroom, but for the fact that roughly the same charges were brought by eager prosecutors chasing a similar headline—making cases all across the country in the 1980s. Those which the Amiraults' prosecutors brought had nevertheless, unforgettable features: so much testimony, so madly preposterous, and so solemnly put forth by the state. The testimony had been extracted from children, cajoled and led by tireless interrogators.
Gerald, it was alleged, had plunged a wide-blade butcher knife into the rectum of a 4-year-old boy, which he then had trouble removing. When a teacher in the school saw him in action with the knife, she asked him what he was doing, and then told him not to do it again, a child said. On this testimony, Gerald was convicted of a rape which had, miraculously, left no mark or other injury. Violet had tied a boy to a tree in front of the school one bright afternoon, in full view of everyone, and had assaulted him anally with a stick, and then with "a magic wand." She would be convicted of these charges.
Other than such testimony, the prosecutors had no shred of physical or other proof that could remotely pass as evidence of abuse. But they did have the power of their challenge to jurors: Convict the Amiraults to make sure the battle against child abuse went forward. Convict, so as not to reject the children who had bravely come forward with charges.
Martha Coakley had a chance to show true leadership when she became Middlesex County DA in '99. Obama agenda or not, I just don't see why she should be rewarded with a promotion given role in this pathetic mess. That is not to say that her opponent, Scott Brown is offering anything of substance either. It's part of the reason we are in the sad state we are in. Rabinowitz says it well as she concludes her piece:
What does this say about her candidacy? (Ms. Coakley declined to be interviewed.) If the current attorney general of Massachusetts actually believes, as no serious citizen does, the preposterous charges that caused the Amiraults to be thrown into prison—the butcher knife rape with no blood, the public tree-tying episode, the mutilated squirrel and the rest—that is powerful testimony to the mind and capacities of this aspirant to a Senate seat. It is little short of wonderful to hear now of Ms. Coakley's concern for the rights of terror suspects at Guantanamo—her urgent call for the protection of the right to the presumption of innocence.
This election is being portrayed as a referendum on Obama's first year in office --- and maybe it is, but really, if Obama is unable to push his agenda through the Congress, sans a Democrat in MA. and with a mere 59 votes in the Senate something is wrong. (I'm saying this as a supporter of universal health care-- I am not opposed to the agenda in principle).
Maybe I'm naive as I do expect the people who ask for the honor of representing "the people" to be true leaders in every sense of the word. With that being said, a big thanks to the Daily Bail for posting the recent Dorothy Rabinowitz article in the Wall Street Journal revisiting the Amirault case and Martha Coakley's role in that case.
This case was one of several sensational cases in the mid 80's of wild child molestation charges that bordered on the absurd:
The accusations against the Amiraults might well rank as the most astounding ever to be credited in an American courtroom, but for the fact that roughly the same charges were brought by eager prosecutors chasing a similar headline—making cases all across the country in the 1980s. Those which the Amiraults' prosecutors brought had nevertheless, unforgettable features: so much testimony, so madly preposterous, and so solemnly put forth by the state. The testimony had been extracted from children, cajoled and led by tireless interrogators.
Gerald, it was alleged, had plunged a wide-blade butcher knife into the rectum of a 4-year-old boy, which he then had trouble removing. When a teacher in the school saw him in action with the knife, she asked him what he was doing, and then told him not to do it again, a child said. On this testimony, Gerald was convicted of a rape which had, miraculously, left no mark or other injury. Violet had tied a boy to a tree in front of the school one bright afternoon, in full view of everyone, and had assaulted him anally with a stick, and then with "a magic wand." She would be convicted of these charges.
Other than such testimony, the prosecutors had no shred of physical or other proof that could remotely pass as evidence of abuse. But they did have the power of their challenge to jurors: Convict the Amiraults to make sure the battle against child abuse went forward. Convict, so as not to reject the children who had bravely come forward with charges.
Martha Coakley had a chance to show true leadership when she became Middlesex County DA in '99. Obama agenda or not, I just don't see why she should be rewarded with a promotion given role in this pathetic mess. That is not to say that her opponent, Scott Brown is offering anything of substance either. It's part of the reason we are in the sad state we are in. Rabinowitz says it well as she concludes her piece:
What does this say about her candidacy? (Ms. Coakley declined to be interviewed.) If the current attorney general of Massachusetts actually believes, as no serious citizen does, the preposterous charges that caused the Amiraults to be thrown into prison—the butcher knife rape with no blood, the public tree-tying episode, the mutilated squirrel and the rest—that is powerful testimony to the mind and capacities of this aspirant to a Senate seat. It is little short of wonderful to hear now of Ms. Coakley's concern for the rights of terror suspects at Guantanamo—her urgent call for the protection of the right to the presumption of innocence.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Betting Against China
Very interesting article in the NYTimes today detailing crack short-seller Jim Chanos and his growing unease with the Chinese economy. At this point I don't have a particular take on this issue but I think it makes sense to be aware of the Chanos concern. He has gone against the crowd before in a big way (Enron) and profited big-time. At the same time Jimmy Rogers' comment is also worth noting:
I find it interesting that people who couldn't spell China 10 years ago are now experts on China,” said Jim Rogers, who co-founded the Quantum Fund with George Soros and now lives in Singapore. “China is not in a bubble.”
Colleagues acknowledge that Mr. Chanos began studying China’s economy in earnest only last summer and sent out e-mail messages seeking expert opinion.
The bottom line is that we are still in very difficult economic waters. It wouldn't take much to tip us back into the financial danger zone. If the Chinese run into economic problems in the near term all bets are off for the rest of us. The situation deserves monitoring.
I find it interesting that people who couldn't spell China 10 years ago are now experts on China,” said Jim Rogers, who co-founded the Quantum Fund with George Soros and now lives in Singapore. “China is not in a bubble.”
Colleagues acknowledge that Mr. Chanos began studying China’s economy in earnest only last summer and sent out e-mail messages seeking expert opinion.
The bottom line is that we are still in very difficult economic waters. It wouldn't take much to tip us back into the financial danger zone. If the Chinese run into economic problems in the near term all bets are off for the rest of us. The situation deserves monitoring.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Fish Where The Fish Are
The maxim, " Fish where the fish are," is as relevant to markets and investing as it is for selling or fishing. Thanks to Jesse at his Amercain Cafe for the chart above. It's been popular in some forums to label the yellow metal's move over the past several years " a bubble". I don't know about that but what I do know is that gold is in a Bull Market.From my experience bull markets tend to have quite a lifespan. Think about the lastgreat equity bull market we experienced. It began in 1982 and had a run to 2000 ---- almost 18 years.
That's not to say that there aren't some hair-raising corrections in the interim but as Jesse Livermore was reported to say, " I made my money by sitting not by thinking ". ( In other words he sat with his positions and let his profits run rather than trading in and out --provided we are in a bull market of course).
The point here is that we are in the fourth or fifth inning of a nine inning gold bull and the major fireworks are still to come . Stay long, stay strong the numbers to come will be breath-taking.
Friday, December 25, 2009
A Christmas Reflection
Christmas Day has visited us again.It is interesting that Christmas, the day that commemorates the birth of Jesus Christ, has joined that select two or three Holidays in the course of the year ( Thanksgiving and New Years are two others that come to mind) where retail life comes to a virtual standstill ---except for the NBA and the ubiquitous Chines restaurant. Christmas is as secular a Holiday as we have in modern day America. This Holiday, embraced by almost all, is of recent vintage however.
Christmas wasn't institutionalized as a Church Feast until the mid 4th Century. Even then, the major Feast celebrated was the Feast of the Epiphany ---the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist--- commemorated on January 6. The celebration of Christmas was banned by the British Parliament in 1647 and even though the celebration was restored by Charles II in 1660, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland continued to discourage celebrating the Feast. This antipathy carried over to the British colonies in the New World. The celebration of Christmas was actually banned in Boston from 1659-1681. The venerable George Washington led his troops in an attack on the Hessian troops at the Battle of Trenton 1777. These historical tid-bits add to my amusement at some of the current arguments about whether we are taking Christ out of Christmas in our modern world.
One of the most common images of the Nativity is the manger scene, the "babe in swaddling clothes". While this imagery is accurate, I believe that too much of a focus on " the baby Jesus" almost softens the awesomeness of this Feast.
We Christians believe, that this Jesus, born in Bethlehem is the Son of God, the Word of God, through whom all of creation was made. How awesome is that!!! John, in his Gospel says it this way:
John.1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] The same was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
[4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
This same Jesus we so sentimentally think of as the "babe in the manger" was with God the Father before the Creation of the world. This Word of God spoke with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Book of Genesis. Gave the Law to Moses and spoke with David as well as the Prophets. The mere thought of the Word of God taking on flesh and becoming like us is incomprehensible, ineffable, inconceivable. It's almost too much to take in . As presents our opened and greetings of the season are exchanged the "big picture" of the Feast is worth a quiet reflection.
Christmas wasn't institutionalized as a Church Feast until the mid 4th Century. Even then, the major Feast celebrated was the Feast of the Epiphany ---the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist--- commemorated on January 6. The celebration of Christmas was banned by the British Parliament in 1647 and even though the celebration was restored by Charles II in 1660, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland continued to discourage celebrating the Feast. This antipathy carried over to the British colonies in the New World. The celebration of Christmas was actually banned in Boston from 1659-1681. The venerable George Washington led his troops in an attack on the Hessian troops at the Battle of Trenton 1777. These historical tid-bits add to my amusement at some of the current arguments about whether we are taking Christ out of Christmas in our modern world.
One of the most common images of the Nativity is the manger scene, the "babe in swaddling clothes". While this imagery is accurate, I believe that too much of a focus on " the baby Jesus" almost softens the awesomeness of this Feast.
We Christians believe, that this Jesus, born in Bethlehem is the Son of God, the Word of God, through whom all of creation was made. How awesome is that!!! John, in his Gospel says it this way:
John.1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] The same was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
[4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
This same Jesus we so sentimentally think of as the "babe in the manger" was with God the Father before the Creation of the world. This Word of God spoke with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Book of Genesis. Gave the Law to Moses and spoke with David as well as the Prophets. The mere thought of the Word of God taking on flesh and becoming like us is incomprehensible, ineffable, inconceivable. It's almost too much to take in . As presents our opened and greetings of the season are exchanged the "big picture" of the Feast is worth a quiet reflection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)