A Comment on Disclosure of Exec's Comp

I didn’t make it clear that I was advocating a wiser approach for the boards of directors, not legislature. In fact, if anything, I’d get rid of Sarbanes-Oxley and other such idiocy. An entire industry of a special breed of consultants has sprung up in the wake of corporate scandals. What do they consult on? – How to properly navigate the latest round of idiotic legislature that seeks to control the activity of those who actually produce. The legislature that was created by and for the benefit of those who couldn’t make something worthy of human consumption if their lives depended on it. Everyone has heard the cliché that those who can’t do, teach. Well, these good folks do even better. They charge exorbitant amounts of money to advise corporations on how to abide by the regulations, some of which seem to have been lifted directly from Alice in Wonderland. Happy Unbirthday to ya’all!

HAMAS' Victory

Enough commentary has been written on this victory of democracy without my two cents. One however (and unfortunately, I forgot where I read it), had a particularly interesting insight. It tied the results of the Palestinian's democratic elections to Bush's view of democracy. The article highlighted Bush's black-and-white perception of the world, where liberty inevitably leads to democracy (the post-nukes argument for going into Iraq). This election should hammer the last nail into the coffin of that argument, but I'm not holding my breath. (I just came across a quote by Schiller that rang so true: "With stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.") And no, I don't hate saying, "I told you so." - I told you so. And I don't mind repeating myself, for any state to be democratic, and for any people to be free, THEY GOTTA WANT IT! Neither liberty nor democracy can be received as gifts, they can only be won. And neither Iraqis nor the Palestinians wanted them. Why anyone would be surprised by the results of this election is a mystery to me.

Another noteworthy aspect of this election was Kremlin's (official statement from the ministry of foreign affairs) prompt response to the will of Palestinian people. It comes to us by way of gazeta.ru:

«В Москве рассматривают выборы в палестинский законодательный совет как крупное событие на пути дальнейшей демократизации палестинского общества, создания институтов будущего государства. Мы всегда уважали и будем уважать демократический выбор палестинского народа, на основе которого предстоит формирование нового состава палестинской законодательной и исполнительной власти…”

27 ЯНВАРЯ 10:24

Roughly translated:

Moscow sees the elections of Palestinian governing body as a significant event on the path of further democratization of Palestinian society, and creation of institutions for the future state. We have always respected and will always respect the democratic choice of the Palestinian people, which will serve as a basis for creation of new constituency for Palestinian legislative and executive branches.

January 27, 10:24 AM

Kremlin's blatant disregard for the fact that HAMAS is a self-avowed terrorist organization with a clearly stated objective of eliminating Israel from the face of the earth highlights Russian duplicity in dealing with terrorists, as well as their undying commitment to state-sponsored anti-Semitism.

Well, as the saying goes, what's good for the goose… When the Beslan tragedy occurred, like any normal westerner, I unequivocally condemned it as an act of beastly brutality by the group that deserves to be eliminated. I also fully supported Russian efforts in quelling the Chechen rebellion and eliminating the terrorists. In light of Kremlin's statement, I have come to reconsider my position. Perhaps they're not "terrorists" after all, but freedom fighters, which deserve to have democratic elections in their pursuit of autonomy and statehood. And once they elect Basayev and his thugs, um, I mean democratically elected officials; they will be equally entitled to creation of various institutions necessary for the formation of their democratic state.

Kremlin's statement is a spit in the face of the entire western block. Their willingness to embrace an organization that can be seen as a very definition of a terrorist group is indicative of their general indifference to the issue of international terrorism, and their commitment to peace and democracy is nothing more than another cheap slogan

Disclosure Of Executives' Compensation

Suddenly, everyone’s concern with executives’ pay has surfaced. It has always been a fun subject at the water coolers and union-sponsored events, but now it’s making inroads into legislature. Should executives’ compensation packages be publicly disclosed? – No. Why? Because it’s a matter of basic privacy. It is simply nobody’s (except the shareholder’s) business. Executives are entitled to the same level of privacy as anyone else. Luckily, it’s not just my opinion, it’s the law.

Having said all this, I think it’s the wrong question. The reason for this question is the apparent lack of correspondence between their pay and the company’s performance. By no means does this apply to all executives. Ellison, Gates, Jobs are some of the notable exceptions. But what about the likes of Wagoner, Ford Jr. or other executives whose companies have been consistently in the red, show complete lack of strategy, and the only way they know how to narrow the losses is by downsizing or outsourcing? Should their compensation packages be made public? – No. However poor their performance is, they’re still entitled to the same privacy as the rest of us. Additionally though, whatever that package is, it’s too much. There’s no justification for any pay increase to an executive whose company does not consistently outperform the market. Why? – If it’s unclear to you, you should not participate in this discussion.

Furthermore, executive packages should be completely restructured to reflect the difference in job requirements. They’re hired for a single purpose: make the company profitable. Um, if you’ve just agreed with this, and have nothing to add, you’re missing the same key component as the boards of directors of GM and Ford. No, they’re not hired to simply make the company profitable. Their job is to ensure that the company is profitable now AND in the long term. It’s not a subtle difference. The Wall Street is in the business of making money this quarter; next quarter they can invest elsewhere. The executive’s job is to ensure the company’s success LONG TERM (tip my hat to Costco). Their compensation packages should reflect that. I don’t understand how an executive can leave a failing company within a year or two after having stolen, I mean received, millions of dollars (and the board of directors just let them!). There are only two potential reasons for that: utter incompetence or corruption.

Here’s what I would propose: executives should be required to manage the company for a term of at least six years. During this term, their salary should be in the same range as their well-qualified professionals (engineers, accountants, etc.). A part of their salary should be put in an escrow account (let’s say 20%). They should not be allowed to make extra money off the company in any way during the first term. By the end of the first term, the company’s performance, and its strategic position should be evaluated, and based on the findings the executives should receive a percentage of the profits (I don't think anyone is going to argue about their salaries if the company is consistently profitable and growing). If the company’s health is found wanting, their escrowed salary should be reinvested back into the business (since they’re clearly not as well-qualified as they claimed). The numbers might be off, but the basic principle behind this is very sound. Executives are hired for their strategic vision and their ability to implement it. Neither one can be appropriately evaluated in the short term. Thus their compensation should be commensurate with the company’s performance over some reasonable period of time.

Russia’s March toward Freedom

Excerpts translated from www.gazeta.ru:

Russian President, Vladimir Putin, under mysterious circumstances, has signed a scandalous law regarding non-governmental agencies. Although Putin made the decision on January 10, Kremlin has made it public only today - right after the departure of German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, from Russia.
…
In summarizing the new law, Gazeta said the following: Russian Registration (a government institution) will track activities of foreign and Russian non-government organizations. Under this law, chapters and filial offices of foreign organizations will have to register (with RR). Besides the registration, affiliates of the foreign non-commercial organizations will have to disclose to RR their planned activities, as well as the amounts of financing, and other agencies, with which they intend to cooperate on the territory of Russia. The infusions of foreign financing and the goals they seek to achieve, will have to be disclosed by Russian organizations as well as the foreign.

Ah, sweet, sweet, liberty

Palestinians at war as blood feuds follow Israeli pullout

Law and order has collapsed in Gaza ahead of elections this month. Powerful clans, suddenly without a common enemy to unite them, are killing each other and seeking to sweep aside the heirs of Arafat, condemned as weak and corrupt.

It’s a mischaracterization to say that “the law and order has collapsed”. It implies that at some point there was law and order in place. The only law and order that was ever in place there was maintained by some form of a civilized society (Britons or the Israelis). But the zoo-keeper is gone now. They wanted “freedom, independence, and the right for self-determination”. Had they told the Israelis what they wanted it for, they would’ve pulled out earlier.

The clan wars are the most visible sign of the disintegration of the Palestinian political and social order in the narrow, hemmed-in urban crush that is Gaza. As Palestine's politicians prepare to go to the polls on 25 January, their supporting groups are also preparing for a political war. And rival factions of the armed groups that confronted the Israeli army and the Jewish settlers before their withdrawal six months ago are in conflict with each other and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). On top of that, a spate of kidnappings of foreigners, motivated by petty local complaints, has drawn attention to Gaza's slow collapse.

Wait, wait… Till now, they tearfully used to say, that it was the evil Israelis that drove them to terrorism, and therefore, their vile acts were justified. Now what? The neighbor’s stereo is too loud?

It is the family wars that best underline the escalating sense of crisis. Guns and bombs, not the courts and police, have become the medium for restitution. Nasser Shabbat, a community leader in Beit Hanoun, blames the authority for the conditions spawning the violence.

I find absolutely nothing surprising there, except for maybe one thing: they’re not blaming the Israelis (yet). On the other hand, nobody is rushing to take responsibility for any of it either, so I guess the world still makes sense.

But more complex issues are at work. Since the Israeli withdrawal ordered by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the unity of rival groups against the occupation has collapsed, and the young former fighters have turned their violence within. In the Kamal Edwan hospital … one gunman was killed in an intensive care unit by rival fighters.

“… I've told staff, if they think there is a risk of fighting, to leave them to kill each other outside.”

No comment necessary.

'This will never end,' says one who called himself Abu Nahed. 'The weak will be hit by the strong, because there is no one to protect them.'

Hm… I think I recall reading something similar to this before… Oh, yes, in my Biology classes. Darwin! Right, that’s how it works in the animal kingdom.

Respect Australian values or leave: Costello

Generally, I’m not given to just pasting almost entire articles, but in this case, there isn’t much more I can add. Except perhaps, I wish somebody around here would grow some balls (and common sense) like Mr. Howard’s.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1444603.htm
Broadcast: 23/08/2005

Reporter: Tony Jones

TONY JONES: On the morning of the Prime Minister's Islamic summit, Mr Howard was greeted by his Treasurer's surprising contribution to the debate on the front page of The Australian newspaper. The headline read: "Costello tells firebrand clerics to get out of Australia".

Well, early in the day Peter Costello was not suggesting that any of the firebrands be deported. But by the time he spoke to us, that notion appeared to have matured.

His latest intervention into topics of national interest comes only days after his speech to the Australian-American leadership dialogue in which he focussed on growing anti-Americanism in the world. "That phenomenon", he later told the Sunday program, "Can easily morph into anti-Westernism, which picks up and encapsulates Australia and threatens our interests as well."

So was he suggesting that our close relationship with America makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks? I spoke to Peter Costello in our Melbourne studio earlier this evening.

Peter Costello, thanks for joining us.

PETER COSTELLO: Good to be with you, Tony.

TONY JONES: Now, over the past 24 hours you've been repeating the notion that migrants, evidently Islamic migrants, who don't like Australia, or Australian values, should think of packing up and moving to another country. Is that a fair assessment?

PETER COSTELLO: What I've said is that this is a country, which is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by the Australian Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you. This is not the kind of country where you would feel comfortable if you were opposed to democracy, parliamentary law, independent courts and so I would say to people who don't feel comfortable with those values there might be other countries where they'd feel more comfortable with their own values or beliefs.

TONY JONES: It sounds like you're inviting Muslims who don't want to integrate to go to another country. Is it as simple as that?

PETER COSTELLO: No. I'm saying if you are thinking of coming to Australia, you ought to know what Australian values are.

TONY JONES: But what about if you're already here and you don't want to integrate?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, I'll come to that in a moment. But there are some clerics who have been quoted as saying they recognise two laws. They recognise Australian law and Sharia law. There's only one law in Australia, it's the Australian law. For those coming to Australia, I think we ought to be very clear about that. We expect them to recognise only one law and to observe it.

Now, for those who are born in Australia, I'd make the same point. This is a country which has a Constitution. Under its Constitution, the state is secular. Under its constitution, the law is made by the parliament. Under its Constitution, it's enforced by the judiciary. These are Australian values and they're not going to change and we would expect people, when they come to Australia or if they are born in Australia, to respect those values.

TONY JONES: I take it that if you're a dual citizen and you have the opportunity to leave and you don't like Australian values, you're encouraging them to go away; is that right?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, if you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country which practises it, perhaps then that's a better option.

TONY JONES: But isn't this the sort of thing you hear in pubs, the meaningless populism you hear on talkback radio? Essentially, the argument is if you don't like it here, you should go back home.

PETER COSTELLO: No. Essentially, the argument is Australia expects its citizens to abide by core beliefs - democracy, the rule of law, the independent judiciary, independent liberty. You see, Tony, when you come to Australia and you go to take out Australian citizenship you either swear on oath or make an affirmation that you respect Australia's democracy and its values. That's what we ask of people that come to Australia and if they don't, then it's very clear that this is not the country - if they can't live with them - whose values they can't share. Well, there might be another country where their values can be shared.

TONY JONES: Who exactly are you aiming this at? Are you aiming it at young Muslims who don't want to integrate or are you aiming it at clerics like Sheikh Omran or Abu Bakr both from Melbourne?

PETER COSTELLO: I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that that is false. It's not the situation in Australia. It's not the situation under our Constitution. There's only one law in Australia. It's the law that's made by the Parliament of Australia and enforced by our courts. There's no second law. There's only one law that applies in Australia and Australia expects its citizens to observe it.

TONY JONES: But you're not moving to the next stage, as they have in Britain, of actively seeking out clerics who teach what they regard as dangerous philosophy to young Muslims and forcing them to leave the country?

PETER COSTELLO: The only thing I would say - and let me say it again - is we can't be ambivalent about this point. Australia has one law, Australia has a secular state and anybody who teaches to the contrary doesn't know Australia and anybody who can't accept that, can't accept something that is fundamental to the nature of our society.

TONY JONES: All right. But the situation now, as far as you're concerned, if they are to leave, it should be completely voluntary.

PETER COSTELLO: Well, I'm just saying if they object to a secular state with parliamentary law, there might be other countries where the system of law is more acceptable to them.

TONY JONES: Alright. Could that situation change? I mean, the voluntary nature of it at least, could you compel people to leave, including radical preachers, if there were a terrorist attack in Australia, as there was in London not so long ago?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, where a person has dual citizenship, Tony, it might be possible to ask them to exercise that other citizenship where they could just as easily exercise a citizenship of another country. That might be a live possibility.

TONY JONES: You mean to force them to leave?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, you could ask them to exercise another citizenship.

TONY JONES: But you would only do that if there were a terrorist attack in the aftermath of it. You wouldn't do it, for example, if there were a thwarted terrorist attack as ASIO has told us there has been in this country?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, I am not going into individual circumstances. I just make the point that where people have dual citizenship and they're not comfortable with the way Australia is structured, it may be possible to ask them to exercise their other citizenship.

TONY JONES: Forcibly?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, as I said, it may be possible to ask them to exercise their other citizenship.

TONY JONES: Let's move on. You made a speech at the weekend in which you warned that Australia could be hurt by growing anti-Americanism or Australia's interests at least could be hurt by growing anti-Americanism in the world. How could that happen?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, I think there is a lot of anti-Americanism in Australia. It's not just in Australia. It there's anti-Americanism in Europe and other parts of the world and to some degree it may be less in Australia than in countries like France or in parts of the Arab world. But I don't believe we can be complacent about it. It is a real strand of public opinion and I think we ought to engage it and discuss it. The point I'm trying to make is we in Australia have no reason to be anti-American; that where American power has been exercised, such as in the World War II, it was exercised in the defence of Australia, not the attack of Australia. By and large, American power, which is exercised in defence of democracy and in individual liberty, is supportive of Australia in its interests and not a threat to it.

TONY JONES: You said to Laurie Oakes on Sunday that anti-Americanism can easily morph into anti-Westernism and effectively that could threaten our interests. How could that happen?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, we've seen with some terrorist attacks already that Western places are targets. Not necessarily because there are Australians present, but because in the terrorist mind there are Westerners present, whether they be Americans or Britons or Australians.

TONY JONES: This is to do with anti-Americanism?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, as I said, anti-Westernism, and terrorists don't particularly distinguish when they're setting off bombs, can hit Australians as much as it can hit Americans or it can hit Britons.

TONY JONES: But this is anti-Americanism morphing into a broader anti-Western feeling which could affect Australian interests. Is that what you are saying?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, there have been occasions when Australians have been hit by terrorist incidents where people haven't distinguished between whether it's Americans or Britons or Australians. There is a strand of terrorist thinking that says that anybody who is a Westerner is a legitimate target.

TONY JONES: But the core of it is anti-American from what you are saying? The logic of what you are saying is pretty clear.

PETER COSTELLO: In some terrorist minds, if you're hitting a Westerner, you're hitting a legitimate target. The point I want to make is that because we're Westerners, in the minds of some terrorists we can be targets. So it's in our interests to defend the values of the West and it's in our interests to explain our policy. It's in America's interests to defend its own image and I would urge it to do so and I would also say to Australia's security -

TONY JONES: You seem to be suggesting that anti-Americanism is in fact a dangerous thing for Australians.

PETER COSTELLO: Well, it is in a security sense because the US is Australia's principal defence partner. When I say there is a danger of anti-Americanism in Australia amongst Australians, what I'm saying is, particularly amongst younger Australians, if they don't understand the events of 1942 when the US was the principal ally defending Australia and without which we wouldn't have been able to defend the islands to our near north, if they don't understand that, they may not understand what the importance of the American alliance is to the defence of Australia and our strategic interests.

TONY JONES: I don't want to keep coming back to this necessarily, but you've made the point quite clearly that anti-Americanism can morph into anti-Westernism and that threatens our interests. It threatens our interest, does it, because we could, like Americans, as a result of anti-Americanism become terrorist targets?

PETER COSTELLO: We have become terrorist targets because we are perceived to be Western. We've become terrorist targets because we are perceived to stand for a whole lot of values, which in the terrorist mind they oppose. Australians became terrorists in Bali not because of anything Australia did, but because in Bali they were perceived to be Westerners and in a sick terrorist mind that makes you a target.

TONY JONES: Right. Given that the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq is probably the leading cause of anti-Americanism in the Arab world, does that make us, as an ally of the Americans, a greater target for terrorists?

PETER COSTELLO: I don't think it's the principle cause at all. I think if you want to look for perceived areas of anti-Americanism in the Arab world, it was around a lot before Iraq. It's been around for a very long time, Tony, and most of it, I believe -

TONY JONES: I'm talking about what's happening right now. We're seeing it even in the lead-up to the Islamic summit we've been having in Canberra. What we are hearing is young Australian Muslims are particularly angry with the
American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.

PETER COSTELLO: No, I couldn't disagree with you more profoundly. There was substantial hostility to the US in the Arab world long before Iraq. Whether it's over perceived injustices to Islam, whether it's over the Palestinian issue, whether it's over support for Israel. Most of these things, and I don't believe justify hostility at all, but it's been there long before Iraq. Let me tell you this, Tony - you are profoundly wrong if you thought hostility to the United States started in 2003. It was around a long before that.
...

Alito

I'll admit right off the bat, I haven't been following it too closely; that is to say, I've seen less than two hours of the hearings and read a few articles on the subject. So far, the most controversial subjects seem to be his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, his view of Roe vs. Wade, and his support of anauthorized wiretaps.

Whether or not he was an active member of C.A.P., one thing is certain: his views today are different from those expressed by C.A.P. members 25 years ago. It would've been better if he belonged to the Habitat for Humanity, but as "sins" go, it's not a mortal one. Nobody is going to mistake him for a flaming liberal, but it doesn't look like he's got a white hooded robe in the closet either. If however, more recent evidence of him espousing such views should surface, it would be a whole different matter. I certainly wouldn't want to be judged by my memberships in some organizations over the last 25 years (if nothing else, I'd have to be committed for a severe bi-polar disorder with equally severe delusions). My current views would be misrepresented 100% by that information. (Those who know me will know exactly what I mean.)

According to usatoday.com, "Alito, then 35, said he was especially 'proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.'"
Roe vs. Wade is a legitimate concern, though. Alito refuses to say whether he would recognize it as an established law of the land. And treating it "with respect" is a far cry from recognizing it as a law. Clearly, there are other, more important, considerations for the Supreme Court nominee, but as issues go, this is pivotal for a lot of people in this country. Its importance stems not only from the subject it addresses, but from the symbolic value it has acquired over time. It has come to represent liberal and humanist advancements in this country, along with the abolition of slavery, and equal rights. Judge Alito's track record on opposing abortions by overturning Roe is a considerably greater detractor from his qualifications, in my opinion. (Then again, I'm unequivocally pro-choice.)

Alito also supported unauthorized wiretaps on Americans, and blanket immunity for attorney general when he acts in the interests of national security. (AP 12/23/05 16:47 PST Washington)

While I support his stance on racial and ethnic quotas, his views do, seem to create a very conservative and statist pattern. A pattern that would undoubtedly further the erosion of American civil liberties while strengthening the Office of the President, and the government in general. Personally, I would prefer to see a candidate with a more centrist set of views, and one not as eager to step over the Constitution.

“Cleanliness” advocate

Hamza wanted "caliph in the White House": UK court

Me? Dirty?! Hey! I shower at least once a day, damn it! Blasphemous? I'll give you that. But that's not even my worst offense against the Allah, and already I'm good to go? Awww. At least give me a chance to fully implicate myself. Wouldn't it make my death even more enjoyable to Allah? I guess his followers are benevolent like that, and are willing to overlook the rest.
On a slightly different topic, I have to say, I disagree with the Brits' decision to try the venerable sheik, Hamza, in court. Why cast the pearls before… the sheik? (not like he can pick 'em up, anyway. ha-ha. I'm a cruel bustard, too.) Deport him, instead (it's cheaper), and have him knocked off shortly thereafter (still cheaper). He'll be enjoying his virgins, and I won't have to be so self-conscious about my hygiene.

Afghanistan's Progress

"Yes, yes, education IS a terrible thing. Next thing you know, Allah has to make room for astronomy. And to top it off, for women (of all creatures)! Tsk-tsk-tsk. More beheadings, definitely more beheadings. Yep, that's the way to go. Lemme get my mule and my yataghan, and let's go behead someone smart."

Meanwhile, back at the farm… "People of Afghanistan are entering the new age of Democracy!.."