McCain, the Lobbyist, Obama, Clinton and the Internet

Whoever broke this story certainly threw a real problem at Senator John McCain.

For Republicans, close association with lobbyists is normal business. In fact, that’s how Republicans do business. Just so long as the relationship isn’t too close with an individual (close association with a specific lobbying company is OK), isn’t too often, or too personal. In this case, the relationship (platonic or not) has been with a particular lobbyist, and even worse than that, with a pretty blonde lobbyist he seems to have spent rather a lot of time with.

I’m sure a lot of GOP members are relieved that at least it’s a change from the many homosexual scandals various Republicans have been involved with in the recent past. At least, they may be saying, if there is anything going on here, it isn’t what they charmingly refer to as “deviancy”.

The crux of this problem is it’s double edged nature. It’s negative for McCain if anyone thinks there was some funny business with this lady, and it’s negative because it brings into perspective just how much time politicians and lobbyists spend together. It’s even negative for people who believe it’s OK for politicians to be wined and dined, and to go on flights and trips with lobbyists – because they normally disguise such behaviour by not spending so much time with any one individual lobbyist, and this smacks of favouritism. Personally I think McCain is too honourable, but what influence do I have?

So, which camp is most likely to have got this story going? That’s the sixty four thousand dollar question. Obama is most against the close ties Washington politicians have with lobbyists – or so he says. Huckabee probably thinks some hanky panky went on and wants to air such rumours before McCain reaches an unassailable lead, which he shortly will. Clinton probably wouldn’t mind McCain attacking Obama, but is unlikely to want to draw attention to relationships with lobbyists or bring back memories of how her husband ended his Presidency.

So, my money’s on this story originating in the Obama camp. It hits all of his opponents at once, gets in the first shot against his probable main opponent, and does him no harm at all. In fact, it even releases, by transferring attention, some of the pressure on him for his wife’s gaffe when she said she was proud of her country “for the first time” just recently – something Americans seem to take rather badly.

If I were McCain, I’d be counter-punching Obama, but he’d better do it quick or the mud will stick. He’s spent so much time lately trying to prove how much of a conservative he really is, he seems to have taken his eye off the ball.

As for Hillary, she’d better get her website reorganised, the two main words that crop up on the first two pages are “Submit” followed by “Contribute” whereas Obama’s site cries out “Change,” “Believe” and “One Million People” which makes it a lot more powerful. McCain’s is more like Hillary’s, proclaiming “Ready to Lead” which is perhaps too subtle for most folks, sounds like he wants to be given something, rather than to give something.

No wonder Obama is hoovering up the youth vote. And by that, I mean all those under 50… the internet generation. His opponents are both looking rather out of touch, if you ask me. I still don’t think he will make the best President, but I do believe he is running the best campaign right now.

Only time will tell what happens next.

US meddling causes more chaos – in Pakistan this time

Well, whoever it is in the US Administration who’s in charge of Foreign Policy has been pushing for it for months. If not longer. Now, their machinations have produced a result. Only not quite the one they wanted. Well, they do fall for the sob stories of exiled dissidents bearing grudges and looking for revenge, so what can you expect?

Why is it that successive US administrations insist on listening to, and subsequently acting upon, the weasel words of these exiles? These people will often say anything to get revenge, do anything to return to power, and are adept at saying exactly what the US administration wants someone to say, even if it is a bunch of carefully crafted lies. No, I’m not talking about Iraq, or Cuba, where they have made the same mistake, but Pakistan.

The administration seems to care little about the real situation in the lands they meddle in, so long as “democracy” can be introduced. Except of course when the people vote for or support the “wrong” party. So you have democratically elected Hamas in Gaza cast as the devil in disguise, whereas the oil-rich Saudi regime that is based on feudalistic Royal Patronage and the granting of “favours” is given military aid and support. Remember, Al Qaeda began in Saudi, and most of the 911 bombers were Saudis, complaining about domestic politics over which they had no control.

In Iraq the US listened to Ahmed Chalabi and his friends who told them a bunch of lies about there being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, just so they could dip their fingers in the Iraqi honeypot and into America’s vast pockets, just to serve their own selfish needs. This diversion of attention onto Iraq took the heat off Al Qaeda, allowing them to regroup in Afghanistan and move into Pakistan, thus complicating an already difficult situation.

It’s clear that someone high up in the Administration lost their patience, and looked around for somewhere they thought they could turn into a swift PR victory, a country they believed that would be easy to defeat and which would praise Americans as “liberators” thereafter, giving George W. some great front page headlines, along the lines of his Aircraft Carrier Press Conference claiming the fight in Iraq was over. How many US servicemen and women have died there since?

Over Cuba, dissident exiles now living in Florida have for years told stories about how the regime in Havana is the devil’s spawn. So it was that the Cuban exiles told the US that if it supported an invasion, the local Cubans would rise up in sympathy and overthrow the “wicked regime”. So they initiated the Bay of Pigs Invasion which was routed without any real support from the locals who were forced into the Soviet camp due to the US cold shoulder.

The latest adventures have been in Pakistan. The exiles spinning the yarns were Benazir Bhutto and her friends who, after escaping Pakistan to avoid charges of tax fraud, badmouthed the only honest political leader Pakistan has had for years, Gen. Musharraf, so much and so frequently that eventually the US pushed him too hard, despite him being a staunch supporter of the West. Meanwhile, they support India wholeheartedly, despite the party in charge there today being the one that so welded India to the Soviets.

A couple of years ago, I saw an interview on BBC with Gen Musharraf’s mother. She was a nice woman, anyone would like her, and she certainly said enough to convince me that Musharraf was worthy of support. I have seen many interviews since with the General himself, and he has never said or done anything that leads me to believe he is anything other than an honest and good leader.

The problem has been that fighting the Taleban and their supporters in Beluchistan who were escapees from Afghanistan, not a priority while the US chased red herrings in Iraq, has been rather difficult. But Musharraf was getting on top of things. Just not quickly enough for the notoriously impatient George W and so Bhutto found her support. “Musharaff is doing it all wrong” she would say, and “We will do a better job.” Well, a better job of lining their pockets, maybe.

Musharraf told everyone that if Bhutto came back to Pakistan, there would be more trouble from the Islamist extremists. He was right. She was assasinated. Musharraf also said there would be peaceful elections, that they would be free and fair, and there have been. But only after he got rid of some troublemakers first – some corrupt judges who opposed progress.

Of course, Nawaz Sharif was claiming before the elections, as opposition politicians in Kenya complained, that the polls were rigged, just so that if they lost they could claim grounds for more troublemaking. After all, isn’t that the kind of thing previous Governments in Pakistan did? If you were in power there, you rigged elections to stay there. If you didn’t like being beaten, you held a coup. Both ways, corruption and the elite thrived at the expense of freedom and justice. In the end, the election result gave Mrs Bhutto’s party 86 seats, Mr Sharif’s 56, and Gen. Musharraf’s 25.

This is the first time in Pakistan’s 60 year history that the incumbent party in power has been voted out peacefully. This is the first time that democracy in Pakistan has worked as democracy is expected to. And Gen. Musharraf is the man who brought this about, not Benazir Bhutto who was murdered by extremists, nor Nawaz Sharif who refers to his people as “the masses” which doesn’t bode very well if you ask me.

Now, the larger two parties are combining to form a coalition – between the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), and the Pakistan Muslim League. Ironically, American pressure in support of Bhutto has resulted in the bringing to power of yet another Islamist party in a country with nuclear weapons and on the front line with the war against the Taleban in Afghanistan, and with bases actually in Pakistan that Musharraf had slowly been destroying, hence his lack of current popularity in some circles.

That’s another fine mess you’ve got us into, George. Can anyone guess who’s going to go down in history as the most disastrous American President ever?

Why Nationalising Northern Rock is a bad idea

So, they’re going to Nationalise the failed Building Society come Bank, Northern Rock. Bad decision. Should have let it go bust. Why? Because of what Biology teaches us.

Evolution. Survival of the fittest. Those who take risks, or are unable to compete effectively and independently, die out. Those that do not take dangerous risks, those who are stronger survive. So it is with companies as it is with animals, plants, and other life-forms.

In the wild, if you make a mistake, you are punished for it. If stock market listed companies make a mistake they are also punished. So why are banks different?

Northern Rock started out as a Building Society. Its members decided, for a small windfall shareout of the reserves kept by for safety’s sake, to become a listed company, and received large numbers of shares for free. The board shared in the spoils with share option schemes that kept them taking risks in order to maximise profits – but therein lies the rub: there was only an incentive to take risks, there was little incentive to play it safe.

For years they took a risky approach to lending, and had run foul of the Trading Standards Office many times for playing fast and loose with their lending policies and business practices. They liked lending to iffy borrowers because of the higher nominal margins available to them. Everything was done to maximise profits – but that’s something a lot of companies can be accused of. The difference, and the decision to Nationalise Northern Rock by turning it into British Rock only reinforces this view, is that Banks will be bailed out by HM Government. I’d be surprised if the EU were not very cross at this idea though.

When non-banking companies lose enough money, they go bust or are taken over. They are not rescued by the government (except perhaps in France). This keeps executives in those companies in check, they do not take the highest risks, they look after their reserves, they do not gamble the company on the premise that the government will bail them out if everything turns sour.

This is good for those companies, good for the government, and good for the taxpayer.

So why are Banks any different? Well, their supporters (who often want to keep on making millions every year from the high and government underwritten risks they take) say that banks underpin the whole economy, that letting a single bank go will crash the system.

Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they? Anyway, the Northern Rock is not a pure bank along the lines of one of the main Clearing Banks, which are rather more important to the economy.

Northern Rock only underpins a few thousand mortgages and savings accounts. There are dozens of these small banks, and one less will make very little difference. After all, Building Societies have been merging for years without affecting the economy unduly. Many other lenders would gladly have taken over many of the NR’s mortgages, even the savings accounts, so customers would have been mostly unaffected. Except for their free shares which might become worth what they paid for them – nothing. But surely, isn’t that the risk they took when they voted to become shareholders?

Greed. It’s the undoing of so many. Beware of it in your own life: it has sharp teeth. Except if you are a bank, of course.

Sometimes, African’s are their own worst enemy…

In the West we are accustomed to being asked to donate money to various charities that will spend the money in one or another African countries. We have seen all manner of hardships hit the continent, from Biafran and Ethiopian starvation, to ethnic and political instability from Rwanda to Zimbabwe and even once secure and safe Kenya.

So it came as something of a shock when I read “Unused hospital razed in Nigeria“. The bit about burning infrastructure is sadly familiar, but having a fully working, fully equipped, modern hospital unused for two whole years just because of a fit of pique by the local politicians who wanted it to be opened by the President of the country first, well, that’s just plain daft.

In England we have to wait for a year or two sometimes before the Queen or other member of the Royal Family have a slot in their diary to be able to visit the place for its official opening. We understand that important people have many calls on their time, and cannot be everywhere at once. But we get on and use the facilities anyway!

How childish is it to not use modern facilities just because you are throwing a wobbly? Is there any hope for a continent with such foolishness in high places? Are we wasting our time sending money there if this is the sort of thing that can happen?

Luckily, Nigeria isn’t the whole of Africa, and as an oil rich state has lots of money of its own to spend. Of course there is a lot of Nepotism and waste, corruption and poor strategy, but this one has to take the biscuit…

Boo-Boos of the week

US Elections

Senator Barack Obama: Aimed as much at Hillary Clinton as it is against George W Bush, Obama keeps on calling for a change in Washington. He wants to get rid of the people who are already there and bring in new blood to replace them. Err, Senator Obama, that big round Senatey thing you go to work in every day, isn’t that in Washington? So doesn’t that mean you? And by the way, how about a different speech now and then – I keep on hearing you say the same things over and over again…

Senator Hillary Clinton: All the world knows you stuck by your husband Hillary, and that’s laudable, but did you have to cold shoulder him quite so publicly when he was trying to congratulate you after your speech on Super Tuesday? He tried so very hard too… Go on, give him a hug!

IT

Bill Gates: Speaking as the owner of a company that dominates the world in many areas, not least of which being the 90% of office productivity software, 85% of Operating Systems, “The world needs an alternative to Google.” Google’s corporate motto is “Do no evil”. What does that say about Microsoft?

Tom Robertson (Microsoft’s general manager for corporate standards) talking about supporters of the Open Source ISO standard ODF file format: “Frankly some of the opposition is very commercially based”. Really? And Microsoft’s pushing of its own, non Open Source, proprietary OOXML format owned by a single monopolistic corporation isn’t commercial, then? Ahhh, Diddums…. is da likkle baby crying den?