This Little Brother Is Watching the WSJ
So much for objectivity in the mainstream media, huh? Here’s another great example of a supposedly a non-commentary, independent “reporter’s” article that is so laden with subjective under- and overtones that it makes my skin crawl. From the Wall Street Journal (you know, that supposed “capitalist” newspaper):
Questions Regarding U.N. Officials
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN
Staff Reporter of THE
You only have to read the frickin’ title of the thing to see that it’s going to be a defense of Kofi Annan, that corrupt leader, of that corrupt bureaucracy called the UN. But it gets better (worse, that is), starting off with the first paragraph:
A sprawling report into the United Nations' scandal-tarred oil-for-food program derided the world body's management of the program as corrupt and inefficient, but was unable to definitively address politically explosive questions about the personal culpability of senior officials there.
The italics are mine. But if you read this report (just skim it, if nothing else) http://www.iic-offp.org/Mgmt_Report.htm, you’ll see that the Paul Volcker team “definitively addresses the politically explosive questions about the personal culpability of senior officials there”. I about fell out of my chair when I read the second and third paragraph, which immediately and directly followed that first one above:
“The 800-page report from the independent panel headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, which was officially released yesterday, said the mismanagement and outright criminality allowed ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein easily to exploit the humanitarian program for financial gain, with his cash-strapped regime wringing $10.2 billion out of the system through a combination of smuggling and illicit kickbacks and surcharges. (See the full report.)
"Obviously there was corruption, and obviously there was mismanagement," said Mr. Volcker in an interview. "If the U.N. has a special responsibility in a corrupt world to provide an example by maintaining ethical standards, they fell far short."
In the next paragraph:
Mr. Annan's management of the world body during the program's tenure was "a litany of deficiencies," he said.
The report said the younger Mr. Annan used his family name to communicate regularly with U.N. procurement officers -- including one close family friend, Dianna Mills-Aryee, who he referred to as "Aunty D" -- while Cotecna was finalizing its ultimately successful bid for oil-for-food work. Kojo Annan also saved nearly $20,000 on a new Mercedes by buying it in his father's name, enabling him to receive a diplomatic discount and have it imported to
In his statement, the younger Mr. Annan says the car incident was an "indiscretion" and that he was sorry if it embarrassed his father.
Hey, mainstream media -- Little brother is watching you!!
9 Comments:
"You only have to read the frickin’ title of the thing to see that it’s going to be a defense of Kofi Annan, that corrupt leader, of that corrupt bureaucracy called the UN. But it gets better (worse, that is), starting off with the first paragraph"
Not my read at all. The WSJ piece pretty well represented the Volcker work in the space available. The culpability refers to criminal culpability. Annan was guilty of mismanagement, etc, etc, but there wasn't sufficient evidence to support criminal misconduct.
Changing course . . . somebody below asked about your hedge fund Web address, but curiously you ignored that question in your response to other questions. Any reference you make to it eschews the name altogether.
Can you post the url?
Most hedge funds and other private partnerships don't have public web sites.
Some seem to have a web domain registered (like kynikosassociates.com or rampartners.com) but no actual site. They presumably use the domain only for email.
Others have nothing but a simple main page, like rockerpartners.com.
In fact, as I've tried to find websites for most of the funds (large and small) that I know of, I see that most of them don't have one.
What makes you think that Cody's fund has a public web presence? It would actually be pretty unusual if he did.
-btc
Dear anonymous,
I'm not sure why you care, but his email, at his domain name, is listed in his profile.
Below The Crowd is right. There is not much there.
One question (actually two)for Cody...
Have you ever received any financial charity or welfare at all in your life?
A lot of people in New York received money during the 9-11 tragedy in 2001. Were you one of them in any capacity?
"In fact, as I've tried to find websites for most of the funds (large and small) that I know of, I see that most of them don't have one.
What makes you think that Cody's fund has a public web presence? It would actually be pretty unusual if he did."
Indeed, but Mr. Willard, who is so tuned into technology - after all, he's trademarked "You can't stop the (digital) revolution - would appear to be an exception. No?
Most funds are living in 1995 when it comes to the Web. The client development and (especially) client service arguments for hedge fund sites are obvious and compelling, and the funds being private has no bearing whatsoever on the question. There are stiff security and legal requirements that must be addressed, but they are no greater than those confronted by brokerages and banks.
Cody, you've been uncharacteristically shy on this topic. What say you?
It's not about tech. It's about the attys. Enough said.
In my opinion, The U.N Actually does some good in humanitarian situations, acting pretty much like an administrator.
For everything else, the U.N is actually less than useless. By "less than", I mean that I believe it is actually an impediment to progressive moves by world entities.
For anything significant to occur on the world stage, The US President calls the leaders of other nations - or vice-versa, and things start happening. The U.N. merely provides the illusion that 'someone' is taking care of serious problems, when in fact no-one is. If that were made clear by - say, the elimination of the U.N, maybe some progress could be made.
Anyway, 64 Billion Oil for Palaces program, and we're supposed to think those at the U.N., France, Germany, and Russia, are just a 'little dirty'?
Gimme a break.
" It's not about tech. It's about the attys. Enough said."
Doesn't quite do justice to the issue. A primary concern of a hedge fund considering a Web portal would be loss of their exemption from registration. However, the SEC has made a number of pronouncements over the years that address many of the significant issues a fund would have to tackle. In many respects it is about the technology, in how it is used to address the concerns.
"No public web presence" is not the same thing as "no use of technology to communicate with clients."
Neither of the two private partnerships I'm involved in has a public presence. Both have private portals allowing me -- as a client -- to review information about them as often as I like. From a client service perspective, they're doing just fine, using software and systems provided externally (through their prime brokers, I believe).
I don't find it to be 1995. I find it to be an entirely appropriate use of technology for a private organization.
-btc
Post a Comment
<< Home