Ring of Conservative Sites Ring of Conservative Sites
JOIN!

[ Prev | Skip Prev | Prev 5 | List |
Rand | Next 5 | Skip Next | Next ]

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Conversation With A Liberal- Free Market

This is one of many "conversations" I have with my Liberal friend(he calls himself a Lefty) every now and then. I send to him columns on economic issues. Usually, he responds with an attack on free market issues, big business or the harm done to the environment by technology. Of course, he readily uses technology to keep warm, travel and entertain himself. Sometimes he veers into attacks on Bush that were never the substance of the original e-mail I sent him. But to many a liberal, all comments propounding the benefits of free trade and less government intrusion, can be traced to a war-mongering Republican view on everything else.

Who am I to analyze what goes on in their minds.

Here we discuss the recent Walter Williams column on price controls. Williams best paragraphs were the following:

There's a phenomenon economists refer to as narrowly dispersed large benefits versus widely dispersed small costs. Take the case of a dairymen association. Members agree to contribute money to lobby federal and state legislators to get the U.S. Department of Agriculture and their state agricultural agencies to enact minimum milk price laws. Since dairy producers have narrow interests and are small in number, compared to dairy consumers, their organization costs are low. Their spending of several million dollars to lobby legislators to mandate minimum milk prices might mean hundreds of millions in higher profits and wages in the dairy industry.

That's the benefit side, the costs of which are borne by the tens of millions of milk consumers who're forced to pay maybe $20 or $30 more per year than they'd have to pay if there weren't congressionally-mandated minimum prices. Which one of us is willing to bear the expenses to go to Washington or state capitols to try to unseat legislators who created the opportunity for the dairy industry to rip us off? Individually, we correctly conclude that it's cheaper just to pay the $20 or $30 more a year and get on with our lives. Plus, since milk consumers have diverse interests, it'd be costly to organize us to fight the dairy interests and their congressional allies.

Now, even a 60's "it's all the fault of the corporations" liberal would have to find common ground with the Williams analysis.

Here are his comeback and my responses:

Liberal:

The free open markets can be cruel to people on fixed incomes.

My responses:

Did you read Williams? If not, refer to it. The free market charges the prices the market bears. It can be higher or lower. That is what Wal-Mart is all about. (I forgot that is a bad company for charging too little). What about gas prices paid at the pump? What about the taxes on gas? Are you ignoring that massive price increase we all have to pay? The people on fixed incomes are that way because of a free market?

Then I wrote some more:

Americans who work for 40 years (or more) have 12% of their pay taken in Social Security, a program not contractually guaranteed and with no method to see it grow as the country's economy grows. The math is easy. The market has had no drops over any 10-year period for 70 years. Even low income workers would be better off by many multiples under a private system. And own the account to boot for their heirs.

Then we have to consider these reductions:

The massive taxation over the income fleeced by FICA.

Then various local, state taxes on income. The sales taxes on purchases and usage taxes on utilities.

Now after we recognize how much of our earned money has been taken from us either before or after we get paid, we must consider the negative impact all of this has on entrepreneurial endeavors and capital needs of business. Starving businesses (and the overall profits of most business are in the single digits while we ignore the massive risk by investors) means less employment, lower production and, thus, lower salaries.

Then we have government deciding what is good for you and me regarding our purchases of products, drugs, food and everything else. Besides the intrusion on our liberties (bad enough), they drive up the cost of everything we buy.

Meanwhile, they decide who businesses can hire and fire and at what minimum pay. So businesses cannot hire a bunch of green workers at their true value, weed out the unproductive workers from the productive. Without such an option they just decide to go with machines and fewer local bodies.

So after all the above, people get back "fixed incomes" from their caring government- a mere shred of what they would have had absent such benevolence. And you call that a free market result?

Skip March adds this:

Regarding the Social Security System...ask yourself what you would say to an advisor who came to you and offered an investment vehicle that maybe would return 1% on your money over 30 to 50 years and is a Ponzi scheme. The answer you would think is pretty easy to figure out.

Motherload Xmas Gift In Bhagdad

We just located a buried trove of weapons including mines, mortars and machine gun rounds (made by allies France, Germany and Russia) in a Sunni Arab region north of Bhagdad. The weapons were buried within the past few weeks. We received a tip from an Iraqi citizen.

"This is the mother load, right here," Sgt. Jeremy Galusha, 25, of Dallas, Ore., said, leaning on a shovel after uncovering more than 20 Soviet missiles.

Lt. Patrick Vardaro, 23, of Norwood, Massachusetts, a platoon leader in the division's 187th Infantry Regiment said, "The tide is turning. It's better to work with Americans than against us."

And they are working with us as we move them towards self-protection and self-government.

Human Intellect, Not Resources, Create

Cute story.

It seems that the Palestinians, who have taken over the Gaza after the recent forced removal of Israelis, are unable to grow the quantity and quality of produce in the greenhouses in the Gush Katif community. They now are asking the evicted Israelis for assistance in improving their crop.

Gush Katif had:

[F]eatured some of the most technologically advanced agricultural equipment and accounted for more than $100 million per year in exports to Europe. The greenhouses also supplied Israel with 75 percent of its own produce.

The World Bank had brokered the purchase by the Palestinians of those greenhouses. But the produce is not the insect-free organically-grown version that was so popular. One of the expelled residents, Anita Tucker, said:

"I am not at all surprised the Palestinians are failing. When they worked in our greenhouses they needed to be monitored closely. Many didn't understand certain things, like not using different kinds of chemicals. "

She does not plan on accepting the offer. She said:

"We see the terror coming out of Gaza, coming out of the neighborhood I used to live in, and it's just horrible. Hamas has taken over different parts of Gush Katif and are firing rockets into Israel. I am not saying the Palestinian farmers are involved, but it seems they are not doing enough to stop the terror."

Especially if any of the food will feed Hamas. Unintended consequences of terrorism?

This recalls the similar situation in Zimbabwe when France's favorite African leader Robert Mugabe forced the white farmers off of their land and gave it to blacks to farm. Years later Mugabe had to admit the "land reform" had failed.

The News.telegraph reports:

His land grab had made Zimbabwe "self sufficient", Mr Mugabe repeatedly claimed, and the national maize crop was a record 2.4 million tonnes.

The Commercial Farmers' Union said that Zimbabwe grew only 850,000 tonnes of maize last year, not enough to meet domestic demand. In 1999, the last year before the land grab began, Zimbabwe grew 1.5 million tonnes. Then, Zimbabwe also earned about £263 million from tobacco exports. Last year, production had fallen by more than 70 per cent and earnings were down to £77 million.


Same land and same climate in both cases. One group was successful and one group failed. All men are created equal, I thought. Then why are there such discrepancies in output among various peoples of the world? The Malthusians always think production comes from resources. As Julian Simon has taught us, creativity and production come from the mind.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

That Damn Hot US Economy

Per Breitbart on Drudge:

The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that the gross domestic product, the nation's total output of goods and services, rose at an annual rate of 4.1 percent in the July-September quarter. It was the fastest pace of growth in 1 1/2 years.

Harry Reid said, "Iraq elections and now this. Can't anything go really bad for America?"

German growth for the year will not top 1%. France's 3rd Q comes in at o.7 % growth.

12 Myths Of Econ From Boudreaux

Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek lists the 12 myths ("pernicious" he calls them) commonly considered true by non-economists. Read the all here.

Some are:

11. A trade deficit is bad.

8. Prices and wages are arbitrarily set by businesses.

5. More people necessarily means a level of per-capita well-being that is lower than it would otherwise be.


3. Democratically chosen government officials generally act with the intention of promoting the public interest, and they are uniquely positioned and qualified to determine what the details of the public interest are and to know best how to promote that interest.

In an e-mail, he once wrote "I just love economics!" Boudreaux is weird. I'm getting weirder every day.

Trade Deficit Is Nothing

Coyote blog gives a valiant effort trying to get people to understand how economics is not a zero-sum game. The economy grows even with the "trade deficit". He asks whether the Chinese should take our dollars they receive from our purchases at Wal-Mart and just buy raw goods from us or should they put the materials all together to make a building here? What is the difference?

He states: A free economy is like a group of rabbits on Viagra.

Give the Chinese some of them but we still have more and more.

Epithets Over Reasoned Argument

Dennis Prager was just smeared as an "Uncle Jake", the Jewish equivalent to "Uncle Tom". Once again we see the left unable to render intellectual argument to a subject in which they disagree with another. So they degrade the discussion to name-calling. Prager defends himself from the charge of being un-Jewish or whatever the claim may be.

Apparently, a Jew cannot hold conservative views and still be "authentically" Jewish. He writes in "Jews Who Support Christian Right":

If you think most abortions are immoral; that a lower tax rate is better for society, including the poor; that the problem of poverty in America will not be solved by the government spending trillions more; that marriage should not be redefined; that a race-blind society is a finer society and that race-based affirmative action hurts both the recipients of the lowered standards and the society at large; that we desperately need the oil from a small percentage of the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve because doing so will help us rely less on Saudi oil and won't hurt any caribou; and think that, in retrospect, the feminist movement (as distinct from the belief in man-woman equality, which every religious conservative I know holds) hurt more men and women than it helped -- you are anti-Jewish.

Prager reviews the blacks called "Uncle Toms". They are the All-Star team of black commentary:

Blacks and whites who smear black conservatives such as Thomas Sowell, John McWhorter, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, and Ward Connerly as "Uncle Toms" do so because they cannot, or wish not, to engage them in intellectual argument. It's far easier to libel them than to debate them.

As usual, the critics look at motives. But the true measure of a person in the Jewish view is to judge by the ethical actions of people. On that issue, Prager succeeds. Do the smearers?

MSM Say The Darndest Things

The Media Research Center, run by Brent Bozell, has annual awards they call "Notable Quotables". It is a collection of the most outrageous, stupefying, gob-smacking and otherwise incomprehensible things that the liberal media say during the year.

To further pique your interest, here are some of the categories.

Slam Uncle Sam Award
Captain Dan the Forgery Man Award
The Barbra Streisand Political IQ Award (I think Babs should win this every year!)
Good Morning Morons Award
What Liberal Media? Award
and "The Quote of the Year"
You will laugh, unless you want to cry.

Is it ANY wonder that Fox News has been a success with the idiots that the Main Stream Media employs and the things that come out of their mouths? Believe me folks, BDS is a wide-spread disease among the chattering classes. (Bush Derangement Syndrome, a "brandy snifter clink" to Charles Krauthammer for that acronym!) -- Mike

P.S. How's that new knee, Mark?

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Intermarriage in America and the NYT

The New York Times Week in Review “exposed” a dirty little secret in American life. In Benedict Carey’s piece “In-Laws in the Age of the Outsider” , we learn about the increase in intermarriage in America. Asians are marrying Whites who marry Blacks who marry Latinos who marry Eskimos (my apologies if my terms are not up-to-date). But with such unions come introduction to in-laws that can be initially icy, if not fatal to the relationship made in heaven. (Of course, one must ask: Why do you think they are called in-laws?).

Carey opens his piece with this heart-wrenching anecdote of prejudice run rampant in what was supposed to be a festive multicultural holiday (clutch your Bibles and keep the depression medicine handy):

SHE was in the kitchen trying to bond with her boyfriend's mother and help prepare the food when the older woman made a remark that effectively shut the conversation down.

"I asked to try one of the chicken wings she was cooking, and she says, 'Oh, these might be a little too spicy for what you're used to,' " said Serene Hammond, 25, of Washington, recalling a cookout she attended five years ago.

Ms. Hammond said she felt odd at the time, and later, insulted. Her father is Haitian, her mother Irish, and she is fair-skinned. The boyfriend's family is black.

"The way I took that comment was, 'Well, this is too hot for what y'all white people eat,' " said Ms. Hammond, who since founded a group called the National Advocacy for the Multiethnic, a clearinghouse for multiracial education.”I said, 'No, I'm from Louisiana.' " She added, "I think a lot of white women who date black men get some of that treatment."

Reminders of Bull Connors with the water hoses?

Ms. Hammond had to run out to start an ORGANIZATION because her potential mother-in-law expressed that the wings may be too hot for her palate. The comment could have caused a laugh between the two and an opportunity to bond while recognizing their differences. They also could have discovered what they had in common (real joy when people from different cultures mix). But this woman has been indoctrinated into the taboo prohibiting the mention of any differences. It even became the banner for another victim’s organization that this woman can establish. She is undoubtedly about to receive a donation from some Left-wing organization.

Should a White marrying a Chinese person not ask whether the take-out they order is authentic? Should a Christian whose daughter is dating a Jew ask his father if their new apartment is “to die for”? Should a white son-in-law apologize to the black father-in-law that their grandchildren will likely not make the NBA (because they are not Croatian)?

The barriers between the cultures are ever greater due to this “Don’t Ask. Don’t Tell” mentality. Yet, with Richard Pryor’s recent passing, we saw in his comedy, and in the current comedy of Dave Chappelle, that differences exist and can be a source of joy and laughter. Dig an inch or two below the surface and you find the similarities between people are greater than one ever expected.

But the NYT and its PC police keep guard for any chink in the fence between people. Allegations of “racist” are tossed at people who dare to mention any differences.

I played basketball while growing up. A lot of B-Ball. And by going all around town with my friends (my group was made up of a Cuban, Chinese, Irishman, Italian, 2 blacks and me, a swarthy Jew) to locate top competition, we played on courts in every neighborhood. We hung out because we lived in what would be called a “multi-cultural” neighborhood. We just thought we all had little money. We joked among ourselves about our differences some but those differences were minimal compared to our drive to just play ball.

We won the city championship in junior high. I credit our ability to jump out to early leads to the James Brown tapes we listened to pre-game in the locker room. Later in high school, I was one of 4 white guys on the 16-man varsity roster. I played little but spent how many hours in practice, travel and games mostly with “the brothers”. During the racially tense 60’s and early 70’s, I never felt insecure or intimidated. My neighborhood friends and I continued to play B-Ball or football in our free time until college and adulthood broke us apart (one of us actually had a 10-year plus career in the NFL).

To truly know another is to recognize both similarities and differences on an individual level and on a cultural, religious and ethnic level. It is snobs with little first-hand relationships with people outside of their groups that get most outraged over these manufactured “slights”. We need to point out how irritating these delicate sensibilities are of the slighted and move on with what counts- having a laugh and finding some brothers to play a good game of hoop.

Back to Ms. Hammond, if she left that boyfriend due to his mother’s innocent comment, then that brother was a very lucky man.

Israel's Obit? Not Likely Mr. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Citing Jane's Defence Weekly (subscription required), The World Tribune reports that Syria and Iran will provide assistance to each other if the world community does anything to thwart Iran's nuclear program or Syria's military. These rogue countries will provide each other safe haven and military weaponry. Syria agreed to store Iranian materials and weapons should Teheran come under United Nations sanctions. Iran also pledged to grant haven to any Syrian intelligence officer indicted by the UN or Lebanon.

Doesn't that just make it easy for us to see who is next on the Hit Parade? Per Jack Langer at Human Events, the Israelis plan on a March hit on Iran whether the country is led by Netanyahu or Sharon. One cannot expect Israel to wait when Iran has openly stated their intentions to annihilate Israel. Though Israel's Defense Ministry has declared that there were no intentions to attack Iran “at the moment”.

Where is Bush on that? Per Langer:

It is clear that Bush views a nuclear-armed Iran as unacceptable and that if diplomacy fails, the U.S. would support an Israeli strike on Iran, possibly even assisting it. There is little doubt that such an attack would complicate U.S. efforts in Iraq by antagonizing the Iraqi population, especially the Shiites. But in the global War on Terror, the Bush Administration has decided that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons simply cannot be countenanced. The only question is whether, by March, it will agree with Israel that the time for diplomacy has already expired.

There goes the "order" in Iran and Syria, huh Lefties? I guess we get Syria in this short 2 on 2 match. Reid, Pelosi and Dean are working on something. They are wasting their time if they are preparing an obituary for Israel.

Added Skip March:

The underwhelming response from the rest of the world through the United Nations to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's madness is fully expected. Not only is the UN incompetent and corrupt, but in fact it is dangerous. It's failure to decisively confront Iraq and now Iran demonstrates the sympathies of the majority of its members including the Security Council. Lessons of history won't be learned here.

Remarkably, arguments questioning Israel's legitimacy still persist despite the fact that it was the first country formed with the consent of the world through the UN. Origins of most other Middle Eastern countries arose from empires and colonialism (Balfour nothwithstanding). Where's the moral legitimacy there? Their leaders are largely despots.

As Ronald Reagan taught us all, tough choices can be simple and clear, but that doesn't mean they are easy. It is simply clear that we should no longer choose the course charted by a corrupt and dangerous institution....the UN. This choice will not be easy in the face of phony moral outrage from that institution and its supporters, foreign and domestic. But it is a choice that will have to be made.

Another Bombing In The US And No One Would Be Bitching

On spying charges against Bush, James Taranto of the WSJ says:

[T]he administration's success (or luck) in terror-prevention has made it possible to be complacent.

If we could only see what a Gore-Kerry presidency would have wrought. We would have had the scary French on our side. That would have stopped terrorists in their tracks.

Dem Strategy For Election Defeat

Of course, you need the nomination first before you can run for President. That is why Joe Lieberman has no shot and all the Harry Reids do. But they destroy their chance at election with their schizo hawk-dove game.

The American public, even by a small majority, choose the proponents of actively pursuing their security against Islamic radicals who have vowed our destruction over those who do not. The wire-taps have assisted in that goal. Still, the fill-in-the-blank Democrat will get 45-48% of the vote. The winner will be a Republican.

BTW, did you see the picture of the Patriot Act-killer back when Bush signed the law? Old Harry was smiling as he looked over Bush's shoulder. Guess he was for it before he was against it. The picture is in Drudge.

Ahnuld Turns His Back On His Home Town Over Tookie

Governor Schwarzenegger is returning to his hometown in Austria a ring they awarded him in 1999. He is also withholding his approval of his hometown's use of his name commercially (it is on a stadium) or in any advertising in the future. The Graz City's officials were supporters of Tookie Williams. Schwarzenegger's decision not to grant clemency from execution to the murderer who had killed 4 people in cold blood went against the Graz officials' sense of justice. They were petitioning to remove Schwarzenegger's name from the stadium.

They should remove his name and replace it with Tookie Williams' name. That will show the world their morals.

Don't they only have a right to "punish" him?

Monday, December 19, 2005

Unintentional Rope-A-Dope

WSJ's blog by James Taranto offers this psycho-babble analysis of the Leftists' unwillingness to offer solutions:

[It] reveals a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem. If they offered their own policy ideas they would be vulnerable to criticism. They would run the risk that their ideas would fail, or would not seem persuasive to others. This is especially difficult for anti-capitalists after the fall of the Soviet Union.

I try not to even attempt to ever get into the heads of people I do not respect. But then Taranto wonders if Bush has been just employing the Ali-strategy of the "rope-a-dope" on the Dems, knowing they'd never completely squelch their dovism when the war turned ugly.

He writes:

In recent weeks Democrats have taken a host of outrageous positions on Iraq: John Kerry* accuses our troops of "terrorizing kids and children." Howard Dean says victory is "just plain wrong." On Friday the House voted 279-109 in favor of a resolution "expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq," which means that 108 Democrats and socialist Bernie Sanders are now on record opposing victory. (Fifty-nine Dems voted for victory, and 32 of them, along with two Republicans, voted "present.")

MSM "Tilting" Left? Like A Felled Tree

While we all know it, here is a study that confirms our attitude that the MSM is liberally biased.

The UCLA News reviews the "UCLA-led study" and confirms that:

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

Notice that the WSJ news is also "tilting Left".

The study also notes that Brit Hume on Fox tilts right at the same level that ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" tilts Left. So, if you watched these 3 shows, you would have close to balance in your news viewing.

2 Questions:

1. Does Fox' high rating point to the populace's preference in politics?
2. Do liberals who view the MSM as too conservative prove how radical they have become?

Who Is For Israel? Not NYT and A Number of Dems

A blogger quoted in The American Thinker writes the following on a recent House vote on a "resolution urging that the Palestinians deny Hamas the opportunity to run in elections and stated that financial aid would be in jeopardy if Hamas candidates were permitted to run":

The vote to support Israel was 397 in favor of the Resolution, and 17 were opposed. Of the 17 who voted to give Hamas the power to destory Israel, 16 were Democrats.

Meanwhile another blogger notes the NYT refusal to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization.
The sole republican was isolationist Ron Paul. The 16 Dems? They were:

Nick Rahall, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, Melvin Watt, Earl Blumenauer, Diane Watson, Jim McDermott, David Obey, Eddie Johnson, John Dingell, Cynthia McKinney, Pete Stark, Neil Abercrombie, James Moran

Our Military Protects Our Rights

A quote from John Stuart Mill in Mark Alexander's "The name American".

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

The war protesters using the freedoms forged and protected by our military claim a heroism unto themselves for declaiming some issue or other. The right is theirs. Their claimed "heroism" is lost to me. Too many of them ignore the sacrifice of those who give them this right. Again, stealing from Alexander's column:

Amid the political rancor about justifications for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, it is worth remembering the words of Admiral Jeremiah Denton: "It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."

It is those who are fighting the Islamic terrorists in Iraq and in the world of public opinion who are the heroes.

It is easy to hide behind a banner of pacifism. Writes Rabbi Daniel Lapin:

If many of my fellow citizens replace courage with cowardice, the quality of my life declines. They may cloak their cowardice in virtue by speaking of pacifism or wishing to save lives but their abject fear nonetheless empowers tyranny. Their fear of confronting evil means they see only victims, never villains. They see only the deprived and never the depraved. They make it all but impossible for government to fulfill its primary purpose—defending citizens from violence. It is cowardice when government fails to empower the military to protect us from violence perpetrated by outside enemies.

Sunday, December 18, 2005

Pelosi: We"ll Tell You Our Position Someday

We have been waiting (on pins and needles) for the Democrat official position on how to fight (or not fight) terror or how to extricate ourselves from Iraq. Now, Nacy Pelosi has advised us that we will not hear the Democrat position after all all this time.

The WaPo reports:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.

Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she sad.

"There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position," Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.

No unified position? Their rhetoric sure speaks in one voice. They are for withdrawal except when there is a vote to place their voice in an official record. They do not have "one voice"? Not until they are told what it is through polling and their politicos. Not standing for something. I thought their error has been exactly that!

Newspaper Accusations and Lack of Attribution

In a Business Section lead story in the Sunday NYT, we see a sign of the times in this Elliot Spitzer-world of prosecutors (here called "regulators") making newspaper accusations without having enough evidence of wrong-doing to indict the target. This article about insurance giant AIG's new CEO Martin Sullivan, who replaced legendary Hank Greenberg, contains the following:

Last week, regulators lashed out at Mr. Greenberg again, issuing a report accusing him and others of having cheated a foundation he runs 35 years ago. No charges have been brought, and Mr. Greenberg, who is known as Hank, denies any wrongdoing.

The article went on to list the pros and cons of the 2 CEOs with some surprisingly positive comments about Greenberg. But those quotes came on page 11. The above quote was on page 1. Who read the rest of the article? And what is the inference in the quote?

While Spitzer tried to kill the company, it has survived the initial stock price drop earlier this year. Greenberg had been steadfast in denying "regulators" their run of his empire since 2003. That did not sit well with the government watch-dogs. While Greenberg settled the 2003 Brightpoint matter, an investigator, in breach of what was certainly a confidential settlement, told the NYT anonymously:

Mr. Greenberg made clear that he did not welcome regulatory scrutiny. "Hank's attitude was that we were interfering with his running of the business," said one regulator who was prohibited from talking on the record about continuing investigations.

Did that NYT writer explain the likely breach of a confidentiality by his source? We are getting more of the same unattributed accusations to bolster a liberal anti-business agenda, Bernie.

Ring of Conservative Sites Ring of Conservative Sites
JOIN!

[ Prev | Skip Prev | Prev 5 | List |
Rand | Next 5 | Skip Next | Next ]