More consolidation is taking place in the global economy. A hungry BlackRock is acquiring Barclays Global Investors, making it the largest money manager in the world. Its assets will be staggering, surpassing that of the US Federal Reserve. Such a heavy concentration of assets should be worrying, though few are registering concerns as yet.
A piece by Karen Weise, from ProPublica (Jun 12, 2009) documents the move:
BlackRock is forking out $13.5 billion to buy Barclays Global Investors, forming the largest money manager in the world, reports Bloomberg News. The acquisition means BlackRock will manage $2.7 trillion in assets—more than the Federal Reserve.
BlackRock has drawn scrutiny for the scope of its reach throughout federal bailout programs; it helps manage many of the Treasury Department’s big investments, like AIG, the New York Times reported last month. In addition, Blackrock announced in March that it would participate in the government’s toxic-asset program as a private investor. (A BlackRock managing director told the Times that the company is very sensitive to potential conflicts of interest.)
Friday, June 12, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Iran goes to the polls
Presidential elections in Iran beckon this Friday. A few discussions abound. Foreign Policy (Jun 10, 2009) looks at the American reaction (or non-reaction):
A Mousavi win would not mean smooth sailing for Washington's efforts to engage Iran, analysts caution. It could deepen fissures in the Iranian leadership or even prompt a hard-line backlash or crackdown that could further paralyze U.S. efforts to engage Iran, they say. But the voting out of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would undoubtedly be seen in Washington and the West as a welcome sign that the Iranian public supports greater liberalization and a less hostile attitude toward the West.
Radio Free Europe (Jun 11, 2009) is adamant that the vote will be far from free or fair, noting the exclusion of up to 475 potential candidates:
Their choice is limited to present or former members of the Iranian establishment. Women are excluded, as are secular candidates and those considered unfaithful to Islamic and revolutionary values.
A Mousavi win would not mean smooth sailing for Washington's efforts to engage Iran, analysts caution. It could deepen fissures in the Iranian leadership or even prompt a hard-line backlash or crackdown that could further paralyze U.S. efforts to engage Iran, they say. But the voting out of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would undoubtedly be seen in Washington and the West as a welcome sign that the Iranian public supports greater liberalization and a less hostile attitude toward the West.
Radio Free Europe (Jun 11, 2009) is adamant that the vote will be far from free or fair, noting the exclusion of up to 475 potential candidates:
Their choice is limited to present or former members of the Iranian establishment. Women are excluded, as are secular candidates and those considered unfaithful to Islamic and revolutionary values.
Monday, May 11, 2009
KFC Un-thought
Problems with free meals and the logistics of passing them over to a hungry public surfaced last week. Some of this can be found in my discussion in the May 12, 2009 issue of Scoop:
The Deal Un-Thought: KFC and Free Meals
By Binoy Kampmark
The idea of a free meal, whatever the quality, always has force. In a society where jobs are being lost more quickly than they are being replaced; in a world where food prices are volatile and often rising, an advertisement for a free feed is worth its weight of gold. Even if it emanates from Kentucky Fried Chicken.
It should be little surprise that a corporate giant like KFC decided to opt for the notion of bread, with perhaps more than its fair share of a circus. Panem et circenses, as the saying goes from the Roman satirist Juvenal, with its sense of forfeiting responsibility and sound policy. The corporate sector has lost a huge fan club, with complicit government officials happy to abdicate social responsibility in favour of market gains. Nothing like gratis chicken meals (‘healthy’ ones at that) to stay the rot and resurrect corporate goodwill for the public.
Enter the KFC coupon, available from a website aptly named ‘UnthinkKFC.com’. ‘Free 2 pc Kentucky Grilled Chicken meal.’ The recipient is promised two pieces of grilled chicken, at the discretion of the manager, two individual sides and a biscuit. The offer’s validity, according to the coupon available for printing, is from May 5 to May 19, but exclusive of Mother’s Day. (Mothers, it seems, don’t need free KFC meals.) It also had to be printed by a certain time: 10 the evening of Wednesday.
The company in time was wishing that it had ‘un-thought’ its offer. The high priestess of promotions, Oprah Winfrey, who creates social phenomena in the United States my merely uttering a few words, endorsed the offer on her program. The offer was also featured prominently on her website. The masses, with bellies eager for a free meal on download, rushed and queued, overwhelming various outlets in the country. Within 24 hours of the announcement, almost 11 million coupons had been printed.
By Thursday, the generosity of the food giant had well and truly evaporated. Having advertised the offer with fanfare, officials were now turning customers back, refusing to accept the coupon. Chicken supplies were apparently running thin. The next day, KFC President Roger Eaton was eating his words before Oprah, betraying a certain dottiness in what he termed the ‘chicken caper’. The company had ‘had a very big projection of numbers on this, but not in our wildest imagination could we believe the response we’ve gotten.’
Eaton is evidently not brimming with much imagination on this score. In this climate, people will eat food resembling worn leather and cardboard in numbers as long as they believe it is ‘free’. ‘Health’ has very little to do with it, even if an assortment of experts have suggested Oprah’s personal battle against an expanding waistline and her endorsement of a ‘healthier’ product made a difference. This is hardly a time for gourmandizing and nutritional squeamishness.
Having found itself in an uncomfortable position, the company has instructed all those at locations to pass out forms promising a free meal at some later date, accompanied by gratis soft drink. That’s put pay to the healthy aspect of it, in any case.
In the end, KFC found that it could barely provide the bread, but certainly the thronging circus. As one disappointed customer, Shannon Edwards, put it to a CNN affiliate station, ‘I have to go to McDonald’s now.’
The Deal Un-Thought: KFC and Free Meals
By Binoy Kampmark
The idea of a free meal, whatever the quality, always has force. In a society where jobs are being lost more quickly than they are being replaced; in a world where food prices are volatile and often rising, an advertisement for a free feed is worth its weight of gold. Even if it emanates from Kentucky Fried Chicken.
It should be little surprise that a corporate giant like KFC decided to opt for the notion of bread, with perhaps more than its fair share of a circus. Panem et circenses, as the saying goes from the Roman satirist Juvenal, with its sense of forfeiting responsibility and sound policy. The corporate sector has lost a huge fan club, with complicit government officials happy to abdicate social responsibility in favour of market gains. Nothing like gratis chicken meals (‘healthy’ ones at that) to stay the rot and resurrect corporate goodwill for the public.
Enter the KFC coupon, available from a website aptly named ‘UnthinkKFC.com’. ‘Free 2 pc Kentucky Grilled Chicken meal.’ The recipient is promised two pieces of grilled chicken, at the discretion of the manager, two individual sides and a biscuit. The offer’s validity, according to the coupon available for printing, is from May 5 to May 19, but exclusive of Mother’s Day. (Mothers, it seems, don’t need free KFC meals.) It also had to be printed by a certain time: 10 the evening of Wednesday.
The company in time was wishing that it had ‘un-thought’ its offer. The high priestess of promotions, Oprah Winfrey, who creates social phenomena in the United States my merely uttering a few words, endorsed the offer on her program. The offer was also featured prominently on her website. The masses, with bellies eager for a free meal on download, rushed and queued, overwhelming various outlets in the country. Within 24 hours of the announcement, almost 11 million coupons had been printed.
By Thursday, the generosity of the food giant had well and truly evaporated. Having advertised the offer with fanfare, officials were now turning customers back, refusing to accept the coupon. Chicken supplies were apparently running thin. The next day, KFC President Roger Eaton was eating his words before Oprah, betraying a certain dottiness in what he termed the ‘chicken caper’. The company had ‘had a very big projection of numbers on this, but not in our wildest imagination could we believe the response we’ve gotten.’
Eaton is evidently not brimming with much imagination on this score. In this climate, people will eat food resembling worn leather and cardboard in numbers as long as they believe it is ‘free’. ‘Health’ has very little to do with it, even if an assortment of experts have suggested Oprah’s personal battle against an expanding waistline and her endorsement of a ‘healthier’ product made a difference. This is hardly a time for gourmandizing and nutritional squeamishness.
Having found itself in an uncomfortable position, the company has instructed all those at locations to pass out forms promising a free meal at some later date, accompanied by gratis soft drink. That’s put pay to the healthy aspect of it, in any case.
In the end, KFC found that it could barely provide the bread, but certainly the thronging circus. As one disappointed customer, Shannon Edwards, put it to a CNN affiliate station, ‘I have to go to McDonald’s now.’
Monday, May 4, 2009
Swine Flu Politics
Much in the world about swine flu at the moment, and while we should take it seriously, past mistakes ought to be noted. Remember 1976 and the swine flu that was said to be lethal enough as to potentially take the lives of one million Americans? The cure can at times be worse than the disease, and the immunization program the Ford Administration encouraged backfired dramatically.
Patrick Di Justo has a good piece in Salon.com, April 28, 2009. Hamilton Nolan at Gawker is less charitable to those keen on keeping us on our toes (and behind masks): Quickly, don your paper masks! Stay indoors! The dirty Mexican pig influenza is here, to sicken you! Wocka wocka.
My own contribution is available in 'Swine at the Trough: The Business of Pandemics,' at Counterpunch, April 30, 2009.
Patrick Di Justo has a good piece in Salon.com, April 28, 2009. Hamilton Nolan at Gawker is less charitable to those keen on keeping us on our toes (and behind masks): Quickly, don your paper masks! Stay indoors! The dirty Mexican pig influenza is here, to sicken you! Wocka wocka.
My own contribution is available in 'Swine at the Trough: The Business of Pandemics,' at Counterpunch, April 30, 2009.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Law and John Demjanjuk
The legal rounds and the issue of war crimes committed during World War II continue in the Demjanjuk affair. It's a long one, stretching from Demjanjuk's battles in the Israeli justice system, to the legal limbo he finds himself in the US. German prosecutors are the latest to seek his extradition and trial.
The logistics of this are discussed in my piece 'Legal Purgatory and John Demjanjuk: A Drawn-Out Affair' in Counterpunch on April 21, 2009.
The logistics of this are discussed in my piece 'Legal Purgatory and John Demjanjuk: A Drawn-Out Affair' in Counterpunch on April 21, 2009.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Killing the news
The end of the newspaper, which is simply another way of forecasting the end of the intrepid field journalist, may well be nigh. But should this endear us more to the polemical blogger? An assortment of commentary on the subject is available.
An interesting suggestion to arrest the collapse of the news print industry is converting newpapers into non-profit, endowed organisations. That view is put forth in the New York Times by David Swensen and Michael Schmidt.
This is what Eric Alterman has to say in the The Nation about the seemingly terminal affair:
Perhaps it is a mistake to try to save "the newspaper" per se. Given the unavoidable splintering of what once was a "mass" audience for just about all forms of culture and entertainment, the old-fashioned notion of a mass "newspaper" with a sports page, a comics page, a crossword puzzle and a heartwarming story about the winner of a local high school science fair is a predigital phenomenon, however great the devotion to its daily appearance on our doorstep by old farts like yours truly. Ironically, it is the sections of the paper most crucial to informed democratic discourse that are in danger of disappearing. Sports news, entertainment news, health news, fashion, celebrity and style reporting will always be with us in one form or another, because they are such delightful places to advertise.
My own survey, 'A Government without Newspapers', is available at Scoop, March 25, 2009.
An interesting suggestion to arrest the collapse of the news print industry is converting newpapers into non-profit, endowed organisations. That view is put forth in the New York Times by David Swensen and Michael Schmidt.
This is what Eric Alterman has to say in the The Nation about the seemingly terminal affair:
Perhaps it is a mistake to try to save "the newspaper" per se. Given the unavoidable splintering of what once was a "mass" audience for just about all forms of culture and entertainment, the old-fashioned notion of a mass "newspaper" with a sports page, a comics page, a crossword puzzle and a heartwarming story about the winner of a local high school science fair is a predigital phenomenon, however great the devotion to its daily appearance on our doorstep by old farts like yours truly. Ironically, it is the sections of the paper most crucial to informed democratic discourse that are in danger of disappearing. Sports news, entertainment news, health news, fashion, celebrity and style reporting will always be with us in one form or another, because they are such delightful places to advertise.
My own survey, 'A Government without Newspapers', is available at Scoop, March 25, 2009.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Sausage Van Drama: Mary Stuart in Copenhagen
How do you botch Friedrich Schiller, and mangle the historical importance of Queen Elizabeth I and her historic struggle with Mary Stuart of the Scots? The answer: a Katrine Weidemann production at the Betty Nansen Theatre in Copenhagen. More in a review at Scoop , March 13, 2009:
Schiller at the Sausage Van: Mary Stuart in Copenhagen
By Binoy Kampmark
The laughs grate, the performances seem grotesque. But the warning signs were there: Friedrich Schiller’s Maria Stuart at the Betty Nansen Theatre in Copenhagen, the adaptation of the demise and end of Mary Stuart at the hands of her nemesis, Queen Elizabeth of England, was doomed to scarring mutilation. Under the direction of Katrine Weidemann, Ditte Gråbøl in the role of Elizabeth and Sidse Babett Knudsen as that of Mary Stuart, succeeded in lowering a tragedy to that of a somewhat crude comedy. We should all laugh, it should seem, lest we lose our sense of perspective on grand historical actors.
Perspective was the last thing to bother the production team. Why bother with luxurious and grave language, the idea of pathos, when one can reduce it to the level of a sand pit dispute with the empathy of quarrelling children? Essentially, the two challengers were throwing sand at each other, with Elizabeth holding the upper hand, if only just. Elizabeth seemed almost moronic in her childishness, while Mary Stuart was, as ever, the harlot on heat, seducing and charming herself across the stage in what looked strikingly like a nightdress. Stereotypes triumphed, though the common assumption of the Queen of England being composed and sacrificial in her role was underscored by a juvenile uncertainty. The cardboard advisors did nothing to change it.
In the original Schiller version, word play is essential. Both characters compete on a plane of power, one for the Scottish throne, the other for England; and the fate of Mary Stuart is given a defence that does make Elizabeth less certain of her actions. The advisors are also essential, crafting defences for and against Stuart’s position. But in this case, best let the girls sort it out in the sand pit, without so much as a referee to adjudicate. Even better, make Mary Stuart crawl on the stage, a spectacle most edifying for one who seeks to reclaim her Scottish throne. Even the premier Danish paper, the Politiken, was left ‘surprised’ by the product, and somewhat disbelieving of the various relationships, including that of the secret love between Lord Leicester and Elizabeth.
Aspects of it were impressive, but for reasons entirely remote from the play. The dramatic suicide of Mortimer, dagger protruding from chest; the spontaneous lesbian scene between the both queens (Symbolic of what? Dangerous tongues, as was suggested on stage?), the rolling centre of the theatre which moved much like a seamless airport escalator, ferrying bodies and chattering characters back and forth, gave the audience much pause for amusement. One member of the audience, on leaving contented, voiced her opinion: ‘I never knew the story beforehand, but my, was it funny.’ And so we have Schiller as the comedian, or rather, a work that was found tragedy and left as a weak comedy.
Danish, in translation, is sometimes difficult to project on stage, though it need not always be the case. The language of gravitas becomes ever the language of pragmatism, instrumental, workmanlike. It can prove effective, but as to whether it moves in the same way is a matter of debate. Translations of Shakespeare appear clunky; Schiller can look right royal comical. Ostentatious word play in this case was trimmed in favour of language that could, as the Politiken column went, take place at a Danish sausage van (or pølservogn). Perhaps his demise at the hands of these so called master comedians was inevitable. He, with his historical characters, would not have been amused. Nor were many viewers.
Schiller at the Sausage Van: Mary Stuart in Copenhagen
By Binoy Kampmark
The laughs grate, the performances seem grotesque. But the warning signs were there: Friedrich Schiller’s Maria Stuart at the Betty Nansen Theatre in Copenhagen, the adaptation of the demise and end of Mary Stuart at the hands of her nemesis, Queen Elizabeth of England, was doomed to scarring mutilation. Under the direction of Katrine Weidemann, Ditte Gråbøl in the role of Elizabeth and Sidse Babett Knudsen as that of Mary Stuart, succeeded in lowering a tragedy to that of a somewhat crude comedy. We should all laugh, it should seem, lest we lose our sense of perspective on grand historical actors.
Perspective was the last thing to bother the production team. Why bother with luxurious and grave language, the idea of pathos, when one can reduce it to the level of a sand pit dispute with the empathy of quarrelling children? Essentially, the two challengers were throwing sand at each other, with Elizabeth holding the upper hand, if only just. Elizabeth seemed almost moronic in her childishness, while Mary Stuart was, as ever, the harlot on heat, seducing and charming herself across the stage in what looked strikingly like a nightdress. Stereotypes triumphed, though the common assumption of the Queen of England being composed and sacrificial in her role was underscored by a juvenile uncertainty. The cardboard advisors did nothing to change it.
In the original Schiller version, word play is essential. Both characters compete on a plane of power, one for the Scottish throne, the other for England; and the fate of Mary Stuart is given a defence that does make Elizabeth less certain of her actions. The advisors are also essential, crafting defences for and against Stuart’s position. But in this case, best let the girls sort it out in the sand pit, without so much as a referee to adjudicate. Even better, make Mary Stuart crawl on the stage, a spectacle most edifying for one who seeks to reclaim her Scottish throne. Even the premier Danish paper, the Politiken, was left ‘surprised’ by the product, and somewhat disbelieving of the various relationships, including that of the secret love between Lord Leicester and Elizabeth.
Aspects of it were impressive, but for reasons entirely remote from the play. The dramatic suicide of Mortimer, dagger protruding from chest; the spontaneous lesbian scene between the both queens (Symbolic of what? Dangerous tongues, as was suggested on stage?), the rolling centre of the theatre which moved much like a seamless airport escalator, ferrying bodies and chattering characters back and forth, gave the audience much pause for amusement. One member of the audience, on leaving contented, voiced her opinion: ‘I never knew the story beforehand, but my, was it funny.’ And so we have Schiller as the comedian, or rather, a work that was found tragedy and left as a weak comedy.
Danish, in translation, is sometimes difficult to project on stage, though it need not always be the case. The language of gravitas becomes ever the language of pragmatism, instrumental, workmanlike. It can prove effective, but as to whether it moves in the same way is a matter of debate. Translations of Shakespeare appear clunky; Schiller can look right royal comical. Ostentatious word play in this case was trimmed in favour of language that could, as the Politiken column went, take place at a Danish sausage van (or pølservogn). Perhaps his demise at the hands of these so called master comedians was inevitable. He, with his historical characters, would not have been amused. Nor were many viewers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)