Thu - January 19, 2006
Is Apple Computer Really Worth Six Times General Motors?
With the recent run-up on Apple Computer stock, and
the collapse of General Motors stock, I had the hare-brained idea of comparing
the two companies.
As of this writing, Apple's stock price is $79.69, which gives it a market cap of $67.16 billion.
And GM's stock price, as of the moment, is $20.22, giving it a market cap of $11.43 billion.
The problem with the current valuation of Apple and GM is illustrated by their respective revenue statements, for the one year period ending on Sept. 30, 2005:
Total net sales for General Motors for that period: $ 193.5 billion.
Total net sales for Apple Computer for that period: $ 13.9 billion
So, in terms of revenue, General Motors is nearly 14 times the size of Apple Computer. But in terms of stock market valuation, Apple Computer is six times more valuable than General Motors.
Does this make any sense?
As of this writing, Apple's stock price is $79.69, which gives it a market cap of $67.16 billion.
And GM's stock price, as of the moment, is $20.22, giving it a market cap of $11.43 billion.
The problem with the current valuation of Apple and GM is illustrated by their respective revenue statements, for the one year period ending on Sept. 30, 2005:
Total net sales for General Motors for that period: $ 193.5 billion.
Total net sales for Apple Computer for that period: $ 13.9 billion
So, in terms of revenue, General Motors is nearly 14 times the size of Apple Computer. But in terms of stock market valuation, Apple Computer is six times more valuable than General Motors.
Does this make any sense?
Posted at 02:37 PM PermaLink
Thu - November 10, 2005
The Two Edmund Fitzgeralds
Today, November 10, 2005, is the 30th anniversary
of the sinking of the ore freighter S.S.
Edmund
Fitzgerald during a strong storm on Lake
Superior. 29 members of the crew died when the
Fitzgerald
sank.
The event is remembered today largely as a result of Gordon Lightfoot's famous song.
But there was a real Edmund Fitzgerald, too - he was the chairman of the board of the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., which had commissioned the building of the ship in 1957.
As it turns out, Edmund Fitzgerald was an important member of the Milwaukee business community, a contributor and initiator of many public improvements. It is a lesser part of the tragedy that the legacy of Edmund Fitzgerald would be overshadowed by the sinking of his namesake.
Fortunately, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel had the sense to run an article about Edmund Fitzgerald today. With the article are a couple of interesting photographs.
It's worth a read.
The event is remembered today largely as a result of Gordon Lightfoot's famous song.
But there was a real Edmund Fitzgerald, too - he was the chairman of the board of the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., which had commissioned the building of the ship in 1957.
As it turns out, Edmund Fitzgerald was an important member of the Milwaukee business community, a contributor and initiator of many public improvements. It is a lesser part of the tragedy that the legacy of Edmund Fitzgerald would be overshadowed by the sinking of his namesake.
Fortunately, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel had the sense to run an article about Edmund Fitzgerald today. With the article are a couple of interesting photographs.
It's worth a read.
Posted at 04:35 PM PermaLink
Mon - September 26, 2005
Welcome to the 21st century . . .
I flew out to Washington state this last weekend,
for a somewhat informal memorial service for my mother, who died on March 22nd.
Mom's friends out in Washington couldn't come to the funeral in Nebraska, and we
had a great time reminiscing on Saturday.
On the way back home, two interesting things occurred.
The first is more of an observation than an occurrence -- I went into the bookstore at the south terminal at the Seattle airport, and bought a book. The sales clerk was an east African immigrant, a woman who was wearing the traditional Islamic scarf covering her head. The scarf was black, and as I looked at it, I noticed the "Calvin Klein" trademark subtly displayed into the fabric. I assume it was a regular Calvin Klein scarf that the woman had adapted for her religious purpose -- I would be very surprised if Calvin Klein marketed its clothing to practicing Muslims.
I'm not entirely sure what the Calvin Klein head scarf means. Practicing Muslims are purchasing clothing from an American designer known for his decadent approach to marketing. Does this say something about the adaptability of American capitalism? The rapid assimilation of immigrants? The power of marketing?
Welcome to the 21st century.
The second event was a fun coincidence. At the last minute I was able to snag a seat in an exit row, and once on the plane, I struck up a conversation with an older woman in the next seat, flying back to Minnesota from Hawaii. She lived in Kiester, Minnesota, a small town of about 500 people in southern Minnesota. Two years ago I sold my '88 Saab 9000 turbo to a man who lived in Kiester. As you might expect in such a small town, she knew the guy who had bought the car and had seen my old car driving around.
It really is a small world.
And, for what it's worth, Northwest Airlines seems to OK despite the mechanics' strike and the bankruptcy filing. Both the flight out and the flight back were full, arrived on time, and were otherwise uneventful.
On the way back home, two interesting things occurred.
The first is more of an observation than an occurrence -- I went into the bookstore at the south terminal at the Seattle airport, and bought a book. The sales clerk was an east African immigrant, a woman who was wearing the traditional Islamic scarf covering her head. The scarf was black, and as I looked at it, I noticed the "Calvin Klein" trademark subtly displayed into the fabric. I assume it was a regular Calvin Klein scarf that the woman had adapted for her religious purpose -- I would be very surprised if Calvin Klein marketed its clothing to practicing Muslims.
I'm not entirely sure what the Calvin Klein head scarf means. Practicing Muslims are purchasing clothing from an American designer known for his decadent approach to marketing. Does this say something about the adaptability of American capitalism? The rapid assimilation of immigrants? The power of marketing?
Welcome to the 21st century.
The second event was a fun coincidence. At the last minute I was able to snag a seat in an exit row, and once on the plane, I struck up a conversation with an older woman in the next seat, flying back to Minnesota from Hawaii. She lived in Kiester, Minnesota, a small town of about 500 people in southern Minnesota. Two years ago I sold my '88 Saab 9000 turbo to a man who lived in Kiester. As you might expect in such a small town, she knew the guy who had bought the car and had seen my old car driving around.
It really is a small world.
And, for what it's worth, Northwest Airlines seems to OK despite the mechanics' strike and the bankruptcy filing. Both the flight out and the flight back were full, arrived on time, and were otherwise uneventful.
Posted at 03:55 PM PermaLink
Fri - September 2, 2005
A National Disgrace
It's hard to disagree with this statement, on
WWL-TV's blog:
Terry Ebbert, the head of emergency operations for New Orleans. "This is a national disgrace. FEMA has been here three days, yet there is no command and control. We can send massive amounts of aid to tsunami victims, but we can't bail out the city of New Orleans."
Why can't the locals do command and control? Because they don't have authority over federal personnel. The unique role of the federal government in circumstances like this is to create one, single decision-making body to coordinate all efforts. That did not happen for several days after the hurricane hit. And you can see the results on your television.
Terry Ebbert, the head of emergency operations for New Orleans. "This is a national disgrace. FEMA has been here three days, yet there is no command and control. We can send massive amounts of aid to tsunami victims, but we can't bail out the city of New Orleans."
Why can't the locals do command and control? Because they don't have authority over federal personnel. The unique role of the federal government in circumstances like this is to create one, single decision-making body to coordinate all efforts. That did not happen for several days after the hurricane hit. And you can see the results on your television.
Posted at 10:56 AM PermaLink
Thu - September 1, 2005
Hell on Earth - New Orleans after Katrina
CNN.com is reporting serious
problems at the Superdome, with respect to looting, crowd control, and
sanitation:
Troops and police have
been working to evacuate tens of thousands of people, who are growing weaker and
more desperate each hour.
Thousands of people have
been sleeping on streets, interstate access ramps, bridges or any dry spot they
can find.
Outside the New Orleans
Convention Center, a huge crowd waited on the sidewalks for aid that could be a
long time coming. The building was used as a secondary shelter when the
Louisiana Superdome was overwhelmed.
(Watch report on the desperate conditions at the
convention center --
2:54
)
CNN's Chris Lawrence
reported that conditions inside the building were appalling -- a number of
bodies were visible, including a baby.
"We are out here like
pure animals. We don't have any help," Rev. Issac Clark told the Associated
Press.
Spellman said that there
were also bodies outside the building and that no one had come to collect
them
Given the large number of people at the Superdome, why can't some National Guard or Army unit helicopter in and take control?
One of my hobby sites is Saabcentral.com, and this morning "Rob from Atlanta" reports on e-mails he's getting from government officials with access to inside data:
Our office has contacts with certain governmental officials in Louisiana. These people are normally reliable, but I have no way of determining if the information is correct. THIS INFORMATION MAY PROVE TO BE WRONG OR OVERSTATED. We have received several emails in the past hour with similar information to the effect of the following:
Quote:
1. Superdome is on fire
2. approximately 200 armed looters have taken control of superdome - armed military on way to take back control
2. 6 18 wheel refrigerator trucks of dead bodies at the superdome alone
3. looters are shooting at military and civilians trying to help.
4. the news media is stirring the pot, going into areas and rallying people up complaining the government doesn't care about them and then leaving them with no water, food, or taking anyone out and providing no help
5. they have declared total marshal [sic] law (shoot to kill)
This is without a doubt the worst natural disaster ever experienced by the United States. And early reports on the effectiveness of the federal response are not encouraging.
Given the large number of people at the Superdome, why can't some National Guard or Army unit helicopter in and take control?
One of my hobby sites is Saabcentral.com, and this morning "Rob from Atlanta" reports on e-mails he's getting from government officials with access to inside data:
Our office has contacts with certain governmental officials in Louisiana. These people are normally reliable, but I have no way of determining if the information is correct. THIS INFORMATION MAY PROVE TO BE WRONG OR OVERSTATED. We have received several emails in the past hour with similar information to the effect of the following:
Quote:
1. Superdome is on fire
2. approximately 200 armed looters have taken control of superdome - armed military on way to take back control
2. 6 18 wheel refrigerator trucks of dead bodies at the superdome alone
3. looters are shooting at military and civilians trying to help.
4. the news media is stirring the pot, going into areas and rallying people up complaining the government doesn't care about them and then leaving them with no water, food, or taking anyone out and providing no help
5. they have declared total marshal [sic] law (shoot to kill)
This is without a doubt the worst natural disaster ever experienced by the United States. And early reports on the effectiveness of the federal response are not encouraging.
Posted at 11:37 AM PermaLink
Wed - August 24, 2005
Apple's Mighty Mouse
This blog is nothing but eclectic. So I thought I
should drop a note about Apple Computer's new product, the Mighty Mouse.
The Mighty Mouse is a multi-button mouse, and each button can be programmed to perform different functions. This is no big innovation, others have made mice like this for years. There are two things different about the Mighty Mouse:
(1) it has only one internal button, and it determines the nature of the mouse click using the resistance of electric current on the part of the mouse you click, using the same technology as laptop trackpads. For example, when you press down with a left-click, the mouse can tell that your finger is on the left side and sends a left-click to the computer. In theory there are fewer moving parts and the Mighty Mouse ought to last longer than a mouse with two or more actual physical buttons.
(2) it has a scroll ball, not a scroll wheel, and the ball allows you to scroll horizontally as well as vertically. Apparently you can combine these motions to scroll diagonally, too, but I haven't been able to master that. The scroll ball itself is very small, but has a great tactile feel to it. The scroll ball works quite well and is an improvement over the scroll wheels out there already.
The downside to the Mighty Mouse? Price. $49 is a lot of money for a mouse, even one that lets you do diagonal scrolling.
The Mighty Mouse is aimed at graphic designers, editing large pictures in Photoshop. If you zoom in to do some retouching, you will frequently need to scroll around both horizontally and vertically. The Mighty Mouse lets you do that with a simple finger movement, instead of dragging the horizontal scroll bar at the bottom of the window.
But for other users, non-power users, the extra features on the Mighty Mouse are pretty useless. If you don't need the horizontal scrolling, the $20-30 price premium over other mice is not justified. My old Kensington "Mouse-in-a-Box" with two buttons and a scroll wheel works just fine, thank you. And it only cost $15.
I measure all products on the hype-to-substance (or "HS") ratio. An excellent product has a HS ratio approaching or exceeding 1:1. This is a difficult test for Apple -- because the hype surrounding Apple products is enormous, Apple has to put some real substance in a new product to avoid a HS ratio of 10:1 or worse.
I would assign a dangerously high HS ratio to the Mighty Mouse of about 9:1 -- reflecting lots of hype for a mouse which is overpriced and has unique features which benefit only a small subset of users.
(For comparative purposes, the Mendoza line for hype-to-substance is a ratio of 10:1. No product has ever scored worse on the HS ratio than Microsoft Word 6 for the Mac - it had no new useable features than the previous version, it was dog slow even on relatively fast Macs, and it was heavily hyped by Microsoft. Lots of hype with zero substance produced an HS ratio of infinity).
The Mighty Mouse is a multi-button mouse, and each button can be programmed to perform different functions. This is no big innovation, others have made mice like this for years. There are two things different about the Mighty Mouse:
(1) it has only one internal button, and it determines the nature of the mouse click using the resistance of electric current on the part of the mouse you click, using the same technology as laptop trackpads. For example, when you press down with a left-click, the mouse can tell that your finger is on the left side and sends a left-click to the computer. In theory there are fewer moving parts and the Mighty Mouse ought to last longer than a mouse with two or more actual physical buttons.
(2) it has a scroll ball, not a scroll wheel, and the ball allows you to scroll horizontally as well as vertically. Apparently you can combine these motions to scroll diagonally, too, but I haven't been able to master that. The scroll ball itself is very small, but has a great tactile feel to it. The scroll ball works quite well and is an improvement over the scroll wheels out there already.
The downside to the Mighty Mouse? Price. $49 is a lot of money for a mouse, even one that lets you do diagonal scrolling.
The Mighty Mouse is aimed at graphic designers, editing large pictures in Photoshop. If you zoom in to do some retouching, you will frequently need to scroll around both horizontally and vertically. The Mighty Mouse lets you do that with a simple finger movement, instead of dragging the horizontal scroll bar at the bottom of the window.
But for other users, non-power users, the extra features on the Mighty Mouse are pretty useless. If you don't need the horizontal scrolling, the $20-30 price premium over other mice is not justified. My old Kensington "Mouse-in-a-Box" with two buttons and a scroll wheel works just fine, thank you. And it only cost $15.
I measure all products on the hype-to-substance (or "HS") ratio. An excellent product has a HS ratio approaching or exceeding 1:1. This is a difficult test for Apple -- because the hype surrounding Apple products is enormous, Apple has to put some real substance in a new product to avoid a HS ratio of 10:1 or worse.
I would assign a dangerously high HS ratio to the Mighty Mouse of about 9:1 -- reflecting lots of hype for a mouse which is overpriced and has unique features which benefit only a small subset of users.
(For comparative purposes, the Mendoza line for hype-to-substance is a ratio of 10:1. No product has ever scored worse on the HS ratio than Microsoft Word 6 for the Mac - it had no new useable features than the previous version, it was dog slow even on relatively fast Macs, and it was heavily hyped by Microsoft. Lots of hype with zero substance produced an HS ratio of infinity).
Posted at 04:05 PM PermaLink
Tue - August 23, 2005
Robertson Calls for Political Assassination - More Coverage, Please
The top story on CNN.com is Pat Robertson's call for
the U.S. to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
It's about time the mainstream media pays attention to the wacky and dangerous crap which establishment right-wingers regularly put forward. Crazy utterances by Ward Churchill are used to characterize of the "left" as a means of discrediting any opposition to President Bush, while the conservatives skate by unmolested when their political allies make outrageous statements like Robertson's.
Memo to CNN: More like this, please.
It's about time the mainstream media pays attention to the wacky and dangerous crap which establishment right-wingers regularly put forward. Crazy utterances by Ward Churchill are used to characterize of the "left" as a means of discrediting any opposition to President Bush, while the conservatives skate by unmolested when their political allies make outrageous statements like Robertson's.
Memo to CNN: More like this, please.
Posted at 02:55 PM PermaLink
Tue - August 16, 2005
'89 900 Turbo CVT pics
Edited to save space. Links to pics of my 1989
Saab 900 turbo convertible (the white one) can be found
here:
Links to white convertible pics
Links to white convertible pics
Posted at 04:44 PM PermaLink
99 Turbo pics
Edited to save space - pictures of my non-running
1978 Saab 99 Turbo can be found
here:
Link to 99 Turbo pics
Link to 99 Turbo pics
Posted at 04:43 PM PermaLink
Mon - July 18, 2005
The Plame Game
I have not commented on the Valerie Plame affair
because any comments before the investigation is concluded are premature.
Either serious crimes have been committed or they haven't, and we'll find out in
the end what the special prosecutor has in store.
The revelations over the last week do show just how far down the bar has been lowered for misconduct in high office, though. Karl Rove, through his lawyer, has admitted discussing the classified status of a CIA operative with a reporter for political reasons. Whether or not this action constitutes a crime, it amounts to a serious breach of the public trust.
The latest right-wing talking points seem to be aimed at Joe Wilson personally - he's a liar, partisan hack, etc. All of this is utterly beside the point. The CIA invested a great deal of time, money, and personnel in setting up Valerie Plame as a covert operative. Even if she had not been active in her covert role for a period of time, her network of associates was still in place. Blowing her cover, even after the fact, allowed the enemies of the United States to trace back her steps for years, including her associates and contacts. An entire intelligence network aimed at fighting the spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction has been blown up because of the short-term political needs of the Bush Administration.
Even if everything the right-wing says about Joe Wilson is true, national security was compromised for politics.
This is a grave mistake. Part of the job of President is to shoulder unfair political criticism if it is in the national interest to do so. If the President has to make an unpopular decision on the basis of classified information which he can neither reveal nor discuss, so be it.
Good intelligence will dry up quickly if Presidents or their staff burn covert operatives for domestic political reasons. Regardless of how good those domestic politic reasons are alleged to be.
If it's not a crime to do what Karl Rove did, it ought to be.
The revelations over the last week do show just how far down the bar has been lowered for misconduct in high office, though. Karl Rove, through his lawyer, has admitted discussing the classified status of a CIA operative with a reporter for political reasons. Whether or not this action constitutes a crime, it amounts to a serious breach of the public trust.
The latest right-wing talking points seem to be aimed at Joe Wilson personally - he's a liar, partisan hack, etc. All of this is utterly beside the point. The CIA invested a great deal of time, money, and personnel in setting up Valerie Plame as a covert operative. Even if she had not been active in her covert role for a period of time, her network of associates was still in place. Blowing her cover, even after the fact, allowed the enemies of the United States to trace back her steps for years, including her associates and contacts. An entire intelligence network aimed at fighting the spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction has been blown up because of the short-term political needs of the Bush Administration.
Even if everything the right-wing says about Joe Wilson is true, national security was compromised for politics.
This is a grave mistake. Part of the job of President is to shoulder unfair political criticism if it is in the national interest to do so. If the President has to make an unpopular decision on the basis of classified information which he can neither reveal nor discuss, so be it.
Good intelligence will dry up quickly if Presidents or their staff burn covert operatives for domestic political reasons. Regardless of how good those domestic politic reasons are alleged to be.
If it's not a crime to do what Karl Rove did, it ought to be.
Posted at 10:33 AM PermaLink
Fri - July 1, 2005
Moving the Goal Posts on Supreme Court Nominations
Atrios has a very good post up, about how Bill Clinton
handled Supreme Court nominations when Democrats controlled the
Senate:
"In the early 90s, when the Democrats were in control of the Senate, President Clinton consulted with the ranking minority member, Orrin Hatch, about SC appointments. Hatch himself bragged in his autobiography that he was the person who suggested Ginsburg and Breyer.
This rather important fact will, of course, be left entirely out of the media conversation on this topic."
There are many factors that have lead to the intense polarization of American politics. But the Bush Administration is the first to have used intense polarization as the sole method by which it governs. Subsequent administrations, left or right, will have to be equally polarizing or else risk defeat by the intense partisanship of the other side.
I point this out because there's no going back to a more cooperative time. The blindly aggressive tactics of the Bush Administration will dominate our politics for many years, long after President Bush leaves office.
Not a happy development for the country.
"In the early 90s, when the Democrats were in control of the Senate, President Clinton consulted with the ranking minority member, Orrin Hatch, about SC appointments. Hatch himself bragged in his autobiography that he was the person who suggested Ginsburg and Breyer.
This rather important fact will, of course, be left entirely out of the media conversation on this topic."
There are many factors that have lead to the intense polarization of American politics. But the Bush Administration is the first to have used intense polarization as the sole method by which it governs. Subsequent administrations, left or right, will have to be equally polarizing or else risk defeat by the intense partisanship of the other side.
I point this out because there's no going back to a more cooperative time. The blindly aggressive tactics of the Bush Administration will dominate our politics for many years, long after President Bush leaves office.
Not a happy development for the country.
Posted at 04:09 PM PermaLink
Mon - June 20, 2005
Domed Greens are for Putt-Putt, not the U.S. Open
Something is wrong when the top five golfers in the
world finish a tournament at (respectively): +2, +6, +9, +12, and +8. And
something is even more wrong when three of the four golfers in the last two
groups for the final round (that is, the four golfers who were leading at the
end of round 3) finish with an 80, 81, and an 84.
The players seemed to think that Pinehurst No. 2 was a "fair test" (as quoted in USA Today). Well, the players may have tolerated it but I thought it was ridiculous. Particularly bizarre was watching the 15th hole, a 200 yard par-3. Time and again, players would hit their tee shot about 20 feet short of the pin and watch the ball roll back down off the front of the green into the fairway. Hitting a golf ball within 20 feet of a pin from a distance of 200 yards is a remarkable demonstration of skill. Yet, at the 105th U.S. Open such a demonstration of skill was punished.
The conventional wisdom was that Pinehurst No. 2 put a premium on the short game. In truth, no one's short game was good enough to consistently produce birdie chances given the greens and the pin placement. As a result everyone ended up 20-40 feet away from the hole, and the 105th U.S. Open turned into a putting contest.
It may have been fair in the sense that all players were equally disadvantaged, but it was not fun to watch. Ugh.
The players seemed to think that Pinehurst No. 2 was a "fair test" (as quoted in USA Today). Well, the players may have tolerated it but I thought it was ridiculous. Particularly bizarre was watching the 15th hole, a 200 yard par-3. Time and again, players would hit their tee shot about 20 feet short of the pin and watch the ball roll back down off the front of the green into the fairway. Hitting a golf ball within 20 feet of a pin from a distance of 200 yards is a remarkable demonstration of skill. Yet, at the 105th U.S. Open such a demonstration of skill was punished.
The conventional wisdom was that Pinehurst No. 2 put a premium on the short game. In truth, no one's short game was good enough to consistently produce birdie chances given the greens and the pin placement. As a result everyone ended up 20-40 feet away from the hole, and the 105th U.S. Open turned into a putting contest.
It may have been fair in the sense that all players were equally disadvantaged, but it was not fun to watch. Ugh.
Posted at 08:56 PM PermaLink
Wed - June 15, 2005
Quick Hits
1. Michael Jackson's acquittal is evidence that the
rich get off more often because they can afford a better defense. That's not
the same as saying Jackson should have been convicted. The rich/poor problem in
criminal law is not that the guilty rich get off too often, it's that the
innocent poor are convicted too frequently.
2. When she died Terri Schiavo had only half a brain. That might be more than some of the people who were trying to "save" her.
3. The Downing Street Memo is not the smoking gun. However reliable British observation of the Bush Administration might be, it is still theoretically possible that in 2002 and 2003 Bush was telling the truth when he claimed to be pursuing diplomacy, and went to war only as a last resort.
4. By way of contrast, if the evidence showing Richard Nixon was involved in the Watergate cover-up consisted not of tapes, but of a British memo based on conversations with senior administration officials, Nixon would not have been forced to resign.
5. Lying to the American public about an ongoing criminal investigation is obstruction of justice, and can be criminally prosecuted. Lying under oath about private personal conduct is also a crime.
6. Lying to the American public about the reasons for going to war is not a crime.
Food for thought.
2. When she died Terri Schiavo had only half a brain. That might be more than some of the people who were trying to "save" her.
3. The Downing Street Memo is not the smoking gun. However reliable British observation of the Bush Administration might be, it is still theoretically possible that in 2002 and 2003 Bush was telling the truth when he claimed to be pursuing diplomacy, and went to war only as a last resort.
4. By way of contrast, if the evidence showing Richard Nixon was involved in the Watergate cover-up consisted not of tapes, but of a British memo based on conversations with senior administration officials, Nixon would not have been forced to resign.
5. Lying to the American public about an ongoing criminal investigation is obstruction of justice, and can be criminally prosecuted. Lying under oath about private personal conduct is also a crime.
6. Lying to the American public about the reasons for going to war is not a crime.
Food for thought.
Posted at 12:23 PM PermaLink
Sun - June 5, 2005
Star Wars Episode III
I've seen it twice now, and it's very good. So
much happens in the movie that you really need to see it twice to digest all the
developments.
There are many things about the Star Wars story which are hopelessly naive, and at the top of the list is Lucas' very flat view of politics. In Lucas' favor, the politics of Star Wars are merely the background for the main story. But still, I cringed when Chancellor Palpatine declared in the Senate that "the Republic is to be re-organized into the First Galactic Empire." Why re-organize? Why not preserve the illusion of the Republic while wielding dictatorial powers?
Lucas' model is obviously the death of the Roman Republic, but he forgets that the title "Emperor" is essentially "Field Marshal" - the Romans required their political leaders to have been successful generals even during the Republic. There were few Roman Emperors who took office without having commanded an army in the field, and the few who did almost immediately engaged in military conquests to fix that hole in their resume (e.g., Claudius and the invasion of Britain in 41 A.D.).
A better parallel for Lucas would have been Nazi Germany, where Hitler never relinquished the extra-legal powers he was granted, and became the absolute dictator of the country -- without the developments being marked by any formal vote or debate (Hitler's status was later written into law formally, but that was after he had already become dictator-in-fact).
At any rate, a Republican form of government might well grant dictatorial powers to a "Maximum Leader" in the face of a perceived crisis, but it would not transform itself into a permanent military empire under the sole control of a civilian.
I realize I'm being a politics geek, but the moment rang false to me.
There are many things about the Star Wars story which are hopelessly naive, and at the top of the list is Lucas' very flat view of politics. In Lucas' favor, the politics of Star Wars are merely the background for the main story. But still, I cringed when Chancellor Palpatine declared in the Senate that "the Republic is to be re-organized into the First Galactic Empire." Why re-organize? Why not preserve the illusion of the Republic while wielding dictatorial powers?
Lucas' model is obviously the death of the Roman Republic, but he forgets that the title "Emperor" is essentially "Field Marshal" - the Romans required their political leaders to have been successful generals even during the Republic. There were few Roman Emperors who took office without having commanded an army in the field, and the few who did almost immediately engaged in military conquests to fix that hole in their resume (e.g., Claudius and the invasion of Britain in 41 A.D.).
A better parallel for Lucas would have been Nazi Germany, where Hitler never relinquished the extra-legal powers he was granted, and became the absolute dictator of the country -- without the developments being marked by any formal vote or debate (Hitler's status was later written into law formally, but that was after he had already become dictator-in-fact).
At any rate, a Republican form of government might well grant dictatorial powers to a "Maximum Leader" in the face of a perceived crisis, but it would not transform itself into a permanent military empire under the sole control of a civilian.
I realize I'm being a politics geek, but the moment rang false to me.
Posted at 02:17 PM PermaLink
Thu - June 2, 2005
Mark Felt and Watergate - the Real Agenda
Much has been written, and will be written, about
the disclosure that W. Mark Felt, deputy director of the F.B.I. at the time, was
the anonymous source known as "Deep Throat" during the Watergate crisis. The
debate is now - is Mark Felt a hero or a
wrong-doer?
But a more fundamental mystery may been unraveled. After Watergate, Woodward has become America's foremost chronicler of internal elite debate and discussion, in books like "The Commanders," "The Agenda," etc. I have always been curious about Woodward's journey from intrepid investigative reporter to stenographer for the ruling class.
The mechanism for this transformation is no mystery. In the form of Deep Throat, Woodward established his ability to find credible sources deep inside the federal government, sources he knew how to both use and protect. After Watergate, when Woodward put his phone calls into high government officials, those officials faced a very stark choice -- talk to him, feed him information off the record, or don't talk to him and wait for their political enemies feed him information. I doubt Woodward ever had to say a threatening or cajoling word to his high government sources -- Woodward's history as the guy who found Deep Throat and bought down Nixon was enough to get his foot in the door.
No, how Bob Woodward became the stenographer of the ruling class is not a mystery. The mystery has always been why. Why would someone who made their name as a revolutionary journalist so quickly join the elite, chattering class?
As it turns out, Woodward's Watergate career is not at all different from his later activities. I submit for your inspection the following passage from Woodward's piece in today's Washington Post, describing his first meeting with Mark Felt in 1970:
"This was a time in my life of considerable anxiety, even consternation, about my future. I had graduated in 1965 from Yale, where I had a Naval Reserve Officers' Training Corps scholarship that required that I go into the Navy after getting my degree. After four years of service, I had been involuntarily extended an additional year because of the Vietnam War.
During that year in Washington, I expended a great deal of energy trying to find things or people who were interesting. I had a college classmate who was going to clerk for Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, and I made an effort to develop a friendship with that classmate. To quell my angst and sense of drift, I was taking graduate courses at George Washington University. One course was in Shakespeare, another in international relations.
When I mentioned the graduate work to Felt, he perked up immediately, saying he had gone to night law school at GW in the 1930s before joining -- and this is the first time he mentioned it -- the FBI. While in law school, he said, he had worked full time for a senator -- his home-state senator from Idaho. I said that I had been doing some volunteer work at the office of my congressman, John Erlenborn, a Republican from the district in Wheaton, Ill., where I had been raised.
So we had two connections -- graduate work at GW and work with elected representatives from our home states.
Felt and I were like two passengers sitting next to each other on a long airline flight with nowhere to go and nothing really to do but resign ourselves to the dead time. He showed no interest in striking up a long conversation, but I was intent on it. I finally extracted from him the information that he was an assistant director of the FBI in charge of the inspection division, an important post under Director J. Edgar Hoover. That meant he led teams of agents who went around to FBI field offices to make sure they were adhering to procedures and carrying out Hoover's orders. I later learned that this was called the "goon squad."
Here was someone at the center of the secret world I was only glimpsing in my Navy assignment, so I peppered him with questions about his job and his world. As I think back on this accidental but crucial encounter -- one of the most important in my life -- I see that my patter probably verged on the adolescent. Since he wasn't saying much about himself, I turned it into a career-counseling session.
I was deferential, but I must have seemed very needy. He was friendly, and his interest in me seemed somehow paternal. Still the most vivid impression I have is that of his distant but formal manner, in most ways a product of Hoover's FBI. I asked Felt for his phone number, and he gave me the direct line to his office."
In other words, from the very beginning Bob Woodward's goal was to connect to the Washington power structure. It was his good fortune to connect with Felt - it gave him access and information he was able to leverage brilliantly later on.
Bob Woodward was not, and has never been, a heroic crusading journalist. He is a scribe, a stenographer, the public voice of certain factions of elite opinion. He has filled that role well, and his work by and large is accurate and informative. And Woodward's work in Watergate was the first of many instances where he furthered his career by serving the public relations goals of his elite friends.
Had Deep Throat been a White House employee with a conscience, had Woodward played a role in convincing Deep Throat to do the right thing against his own partisan or personal interests, the "journalist as hero" narrative might have been appropriate. But instead, Deep Throat is a high-ranking FBI official out to protect the independence and traditional prerogatives of his agency from White House interference. Instead of "journalist as hero" the more appropriate frame is "journalist as foot soldier in inter-agency warfare."
In my humble opinion, the history of Watergate needs to be revised, downplaying it as an example of victorious investigative journalism, and framing it more accurately as inter-agency warfare.
But a more fundamental mystery may been unraveled. After Watergate, Woodward has become America's foremost chronicler of internal elite debate and discussion, in books like "The Commanders," "The Agenda," etc. I have always been curious about Woodward's journey from intrepid investigative reporter to stenographer for the ruling class.
The mechanism for this transformation is no mystery. In the form of Deep Throat, Woodward established his ability to find credible sources deep inside the federal government, sources he knew how to both use and protect. After Watergate, when Woodward put his phone calls into high government officials, those officials faced a very stark choice -- talk to him, feed him information off the record, or don't talk to him and wait for their political enemies feed him information. I doubt Woodward ever had to say a threatening or cajoling word to his high government sources -- Woodward's history as the guy who found Deep Throat and bought down Nixon was enough to get his foot in the door.
No, how Bob Woodward became the stenographer of the ruling class is not a mystery. The mystery has always been why. Why would someone who made their name as a revolutionary journalist so quickly join the elite, chattering class?
As it turns out, Woodward's Watergate career is not at all different from his later activities. I submit for your inspection the following passage from Woodward's piece in today's Washington Post, describing his first meeting with Mark Felt in 1970:
"This was a time in my life of considerable anxiety, even consternation, about my future. I had graduated in 1965 from Yale, where I had a Naval Reserve Officers' Training Corps scholarship that required that I go into the Navy after getting my degree. After four years of service, I had been involuntarily extended an additional year because of the Vietnam War.
During that year in Washington, I expended a great deal of energy trying to find things or people who were interesting. I had a college classmate who was going to clerk for Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, and I made an effort to develop a friendship with that classmate. To quell my angst and sense of drift, I was taking graduate courses at George Washington University. One course was in Shakespeare, another in international relations.
When I mentioned the graduate work to Felt, he perked up immediately, saying he had gone to night law school at GW in the 1930s before joining -- and this is the first time he mentioned it -- the FBI. While in law school, he said, he had worked full time for a senator -- his home-state senator from Idaho. I said that I had been doing some volunteer work at the office of my congressman, John Erlenborn, a Republican from the district in Wheaton, Ill., where I had been raised.
So we had two connections -- graduate work at GW and work with elected representatives from our home states.
Felt and I were like two passengers sitting next to each other on a long airline flight with nowhere to go and nothing really to do but resign ourselves to the dead time. He showed no interest in striking up a long conversation, but I was intent on it. I finally extracted from him the information that he was an assistant director of the FBI in charge of the inspection division, an important post under Director J. Edgar Hoover. That meant he led teams of agents who went around to FBI field offices to make sure they were adhering to procedures and carrying out Hoover's orders. I later learned that this was called the "goon squad."
Here was someone at the center of the secret world I was only glimpsing in my Navy assignment, so I peppered him with questions about his job and his world. As I think back on this accidental but crucial encounter -- one of the most important in my life -- I see that my patter probably verged on the adolescent. Since he wasn't saying much about himself, I turned it into a career-counseling session.
I was deferential, but I must have seemed very needy. He was friendly, and his interest in me seemed somehow paternal. Still the most vivid impression I have is that of his distant but formal manner, in most ways a product of Hoover's FBI. I asked Felt for his phone number, and he gave me the direct line to his office."
In other words, from the very beginning Bob Woodward's goal was to connect to the Washington power structure. It was his good fortune to connect with Felt - it gave him access and information he was able to leverage brilliantly later on.
Bob Woodward was not, and has never been, a heroic crusading journalist. He is a scribe, a stenographer, the public voice of certain factions of elite opinion. He has filled that role well, and his work by and large is accurate and informative. And Woodward's work in Watergate was the first of many instances where he furthered his career by serving the public relations goals of his elite friends.
Had Deep Throat been a White House employee with a conscience, had Woodward played a role in convincing Deep Throat to do the right thing against his own partisan or personal interests, the "journalist as hero" narrative might have been appropriate. But instead, Deep Throat is a high-ranking FBI official out to protect the independence and traditional prerogatives of his agency from White House interference. Instead of "journalist as hero" the more appropriate frame is "journalist as foot soldier in inter-agency warfare."
In my humble opinion, the history of Watergate needs to be revised, downplaying it as an example of victorious investigative journalism, and framing it more accurately as inter-agency warfare.
Posted at 03:02 PM PermaLink
Who In the Hell is
Greg Abbott?
Categories
Feedback - Send Me E-mail
greg (at) gregabbott.org
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Visitors
XML/RSS Feed
Archives
Interesting Reading
Entry Content
Comments powered by
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Published On: Jan 19, 2006 02:44 PM
Published On: Jan 19, 2006 02:44 PM