The Week That Was: May 11- May 18

Stormy Week For Apple

Apple's stock dropped when tech blog, Engadget, published a phony memo stating that the iPhone and Leopard operating systems would both be delayed. Apple lost $4 billion in value while all Engadget lost was some credibility. Apple recovered later in the week when the FCC approved the iPhone for shipping.

The incident serves as a warning to bloggers to check their sources instead of rushing unconfirmed rumors onto the net and as a warning to the rest of the world to not underestimate the power that blogs have now assumed.

Immigration Deal Reached

A bipartisan group reached a compromise on immigration that will result in stronger border defense, illegal immigrants being forced to pay $5000 to pay for the crime of entering the country illegally, and gives them a path to citizenship. The compromise is hailed as the best way to move forward on this issue, but some are unwilling to give up any ideals. It seems that some elected officials feel no action is preferable to not getting their way. It remains in doubt whether this promising effort at bipartisanship will pass the Senate or House.

Wolfowitz To Leave World Bank

Amid continuing controversy, Paul Wolfowitz has agreed to step down as president of the World Bank. Wolfowitz used his position to give a large raise to his girlfriend.

Ron Paul Rigs The Internet

In an attempt to fool people into thinking he has a chance to win, followers of Ron Paul, Republican candidate for President, rigged several online polls after his disastrous showing in the presidential debate. It seems that rigging the polls was the only way he could get noticed.

And that was the week that was.

Damn The Security, There's An Election To Win

Yesterday, three Democratic senators who are running for President showed us just what they are made of. Unlike the majority of the Senate (Democrats and Republicans alike), Senators Clinton, Dodd, and Obama voted to abandon our troops in Iraq and cut off their funds completely. Never mind that it would put our troops in more danger than they are in. Never mind the fact that it would abandon the Iraqi people again. (Is it any wonder that people don't believe we can see things through with cut and run policies like this?) Never mind the fact that it would give Al-Qaeda a new home from which to plan the next 9/11. They voted to suck up to organizations like Moveon.org, who represent their own agenda, not that of the American people.

As President, your job is to represent the country. If Clinton, Dodd, and Obama seriously want the job, they should start by not voting to throw our soldiers under a bus.

The Hypocrisy of Green

Green has become a buzzword lately and like any fad, it has its johnny-come-latelies jumping on the bandwagon. Former president Bill Clinton is one of these. His foundation has spearheaded a program which will allow skyscrapers to go green and cut their energy use by 20%-50%. This is an excellent idea, but one can't help wonder where he's been for the last 14 years?

During the Clinton presidency, he did nothing of consequence for the environment. Since living office, he's done nothing at all. Suddenly, now that Hillary is running for president, he comes out of hibernation to grab headlines by going green. Is this nothing more than a campaign publicity stunt? Probably.

Aside from publicity grabs, the environment is being degraded by environmentalists who refuse to look at the whole problem. There is a huge movement to ban incandescent light bulbs. Why? Compact florescent bulbs use less energy and convert energy to light more efficiently. However, these bulbs contain mercury. Mercury is toxic. If one of these bulbs break in your home, it's not a simple clean-up. You must have hazardous materials removed from your home. On top of that, these bulbs will eventually find their way into landfills, with all the mercury. Banning incandescent bulbs is just another way of people jumping on the bandwagon and not paying attention to the consequences.

Of course, there are other groups that impact the environment and pay no attention to what they're doing. Why do Americans drive big cars? In many cases, we're forced to by a group I refer to as "safety-nazis." These safety-nazis have convinced politicians that children need to be in car seats much longer than they have to be. They always back-up their position by saying "studies show," but after considerable research the only studies I could find were put out by car-seat manufacturers. Of course, they're going to show that their products are necessary. How does this translate to bigger cars? Thanks to the new draconian laws requiring older children to be in car-seats, many families with two children have to have them both in car-seats, even if the kids are as much as eight years apart. Have you tried fitting two of these things into a small, fuel-efficient car. You can't do it unless they're installed in such a way that they are completely useless. The fact is you can keep your kids safe by being a good driver and following the rules of the road. The car-seat manufacturers don't want you know that. They'd rather you buy their products and get a gas guzzler to fit.

Editorial Independence Is Great But...

There has been a lot of talk about "editorial independence" lately. Between the Rupert Murdoch/Dow Jones talks and the editorial battle at PC World, the topic has gotten a lot of play. As a writer and editor, I'm a big proponent of editorial independence. The ability to write an editorial or cover a story without worrying about what an advertiser or corporate management might think is precious. It is the cornerstone of a free press. But while everyone has been concerned over the possibility of editorial interference by various parties, why is no one concerned about the obvious decline in editorial quality.

The battle at PC World was over an article titled "10 Things We Hate About Apple" written by Editor-in-chief Harry McCracken, the article was killed by the CEO, allegedly because it would anger Apple CEO Steve Jobs. If that was the only reason to halt the article, then the CEO absolutely overstepped his bounds. But there was another, much more important reason not to run the story.

It was bad.

There was nothing redeeming about the article. The list of things were all items that had been discussed before. The article added nothing to the dialogue. No new information. No strong point of view that hadn't been heard. There was no purpose to the story, except possibly to fill up space and suck up to Apple bashers. The companion article, "10 Things We Love About Apple," was just as bad. It served no purpose except to suck up to Apple fans and take up space.

In today's world of 24/7 news via television and the Internet, there is so much time and space to fill that we have lowered our standards so we can fill it. But is bad work any better than no work. Do we want to teach our children that anything is good enough, or do we want to teach them to do their best work? I think it is time to say that "good enough" really isn't.

Chrysler Becomes An American Company Again

In 1998, Daimler Benz and Chrysler entered into a "merger of equals." At the time, I told anyone who cared to listen that it was a bad idea. It wasn't a merger, Daimler was taking over Chrysler. The corporate cultures would clash. This wasn't a good idea.

Today, Daimler Chrysler paid $677.7 million for Cerebus Capital Management to take Chrysler off their hands.

Chrysler's ownership returns to America, but not in the usual sense. Chrysler is being taken over by a private equity firm. No more annual reports, no more analysts arguing that the stock price is too high. The company is private.

The question remains, is this a good deal for Chrysler. The answer to that lies in the hands of its new owners, who have never run an automotive company before. While I have my doubts about the new venture, I am nowhere near as concerned as I was when Daimler took over. There are two reasons for this.

First, there is an advantage to being private. The company can focus on turning itself around without answering to Wall Street. Stockholders are all to often antsy to go for the quick money and don't usually want to accept short-term losses in order to make more money in the long run. Chrysler needs the time to make a turnaround stick.

The second thing that gives me hope is that the unions are nervous. Despite the comments of United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, who said the transaction with Cerberus was "in the best interests of our UAW members, the Chrysler Group and Daimler," union members and the Canadian Auto Workers union have expressed concerns. Why is this good, because the auto unions have never taken a long-term view of things. Their main concern is that 15% of their members may lose their jobs or their benefits. They fail to see that the position they have pushed the automakers into is one of the main factors in their failure. Fifteen percent taking a hit is better than the company going out of business and 100% of their workers being unemployed.

Norris Freeman III, a 12-year Chrysler employee who also works at the Warren plant, said he thinks the Cerberus deal will not be a good one for the automaker. "I think Cerberus is in it just for the money," Freeman said. I hope Norris is right. If management doesn't watch the bottom line, none of these people will have jobs and the American auto industry will be down to two automakers.