Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
WikiLeaks: Who’s Next?
Regardless of one’s views about WikiGate, one thing is certain : WikiLeaks has changed information-sharing forever. Moreover, technological advances and emerging social platforms will continue to facilitate the gathering and distribution of information once held secret. There is no going back, and companies need to be prepared.
About half of the documents in the organization’s possession concern the private sector, WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange told Forbes in a recent interview. Earlier this week, Bank of America’s shares declined 3 percent following rumors that WikiLeaks will release internal documents in January.
David Chamberlin, MSLGROUP, New York
Living Good Corporate Values Everyday
• “Your values need not only be what you talk about but what you live out through your fingertips.”
• “Consumers will forgive mistakes, but they will rarely absolve an organization that doesn’t behave responsibly.”
Preparing for a Crisis
• “No matter what you make, sell or serve, your organization is a potential target for data theft that can place all your valuable relationships at risk.”
• “Managing your reputation is not about spin and is not a job to be left to public relations professionals. It is a management function that must begin at the top.”
Indeed, the WikiLeaks phenomenon provides an excellent backdrop for a discussion on corporate value systems and consumer trust. For past MSLGROUP articles on these topics, please see:
Value for All : A Corporate Constitution
Trust Breakdown, Trust Refresh : A Lesson from Banks
Bankers Vs. Banksters : Back to Better Times
Is Your Brand Like Dorian Gray?
What impact do you think WikiLeaks will have on the private sector? We are interested in your opinion.
Friday, December 03, 2010
Thursday, December 02, 2010
WikiLeaks Stalks Corporate America: How Companies Can Prepare
BY E.B. Boyd
All of which begs the question: Are American companies prepared for the hits coming their way? WikiLeaks’ revelations won’t stop with the yet unnamed bank. Assange told Forbes that not only does the organization have similar piles from pharmaceutical, financial, and tech companies, but that the number of documents being leaked to them is exploding “exponentially." That means private companies can no longer regard leaks on this scale as occasional aberrations happening to a handful of unlucky targets. In an age when any employee can walk out the door with gigabytes’ worth of data on a thumb drive, the likelihood that your company get hit one day just got that much larger.
Surveys, however, suggest that most companies are woefully unprepared for this new environment. According to a Harris Interactive poll, only 9% of companies have crisis protocols in place. Fast Company talked to several crisis communications experts to find out how corporations should get their ships in order before the onslaught begins. Here’s what they said:
WikiLeaks’ revelations will probably hit at companies’ reputations, rather than expose their confidential corporate information.
In the past, companies have focused on guarding competitive information, like strategy documents, and confidential customer information, like banking customers’ Social Security numbers. But those probably aren’t the kind of documents WikiLeaks will release, say experts who talked to Fast Company. The organization will more likely be focused on publishing embarrassing information than revealing trade secrets: “Baudy conversations that go on every day at companies all over the world,” for example, says Edelman Executive Vice President and U.S. Director of Issues, Crisis, and Risk Management Harlan Loeb, like “those that involve trashing a competitor, saying in pretty graphic terms what they’re going to do.” In other words, information that creates an “enormous reputational risk.”
Assange himself has suggested as much. In the Forbes interview, Assange pointed to the notorious Enron emails that were released as part of an official probe as representative of what they planned to dispatch. “Yes, there will be some flagrant violations, unethical practices that will be revealed,” he said, but "it’s also all the regular decision making that turns a blind eye to and supports unethical practices: the oversight that’s not done, the priorities of executives, how they think they’re fulfilling their own self-interest. The way they talk about it.”
...but that’s just as dangerous
Bank of America’s stock dropped 3% yesterday on the rumors that WikiLeaks had the company in its sights. Reputations have bottom-line impact. And in a world where leaking and publishing those documents is increasingly easy, reputations are all the more vulnerable. That means companies need to think more expansively about where their reputational threats lie. Specifically, you should…
Identify your areas of risk
Do employees regularly talk trash on internal emails? Do they describe in unsavory terms how they plan to destroy competitors or take advantage of customers? Do communications show executives encouraging bad behavior, or not taking strong action to dissuade it? And if those emails got out, would you be embarrassed? If so, you need to develop a plan for how you would explain that behavior--to the public, as well as to your customers, partners, and other stakeholders. Better yet, consider re-examining your corporate culture so that internal behavior is more aligned with your public image. What “happens in Vegas” (or in your corporate email system) no longer “stays in Vegas.” It winds up on YouTube. Or worse. “Your values need not only be what you talk about but what you live out through your fingertips,” said David Chamberlin, Senior Vice President and Director of Issues & Crisis Management, MSL New York.
And this applies to all companies, not just large ones that seem like they’d make tempting targets for WikiLeaks. “No matter what you make, sell or serve, your organization is a potential target for data theft that can place all your valuable relationships at risk,” Chamberlin said.
Think apologies and reforms rather than blame and prosecution
In the wake of the military and State Department leaks, some officials have talked about prosecuting Assange on national security grounds. But going on offense like that won’t work for a company if all the leaked documents do is reveal shady behavior. The public at large will be more focused on the wrongdoing than the manner in which the documents were obtained. Don’t blame, and don’t point fingers, said one expert who spoke on background. Be accountable and take action that demonstrates you’re addressing the problematic issues. Said Chamberlin: “Consumers will forgive mistakes, but they will rarely absolve an organization that doesn’t behave responsibly.”
Monitor employee sentiment—they’re your most likely leakers
Data security at corporations has historically focused on external threats—corporate espionage or hackers. But the folks at WikiLeaks aren't stealing the documents they're publishing. Other people have provided them to the organization. And many of those digital “whistleblowers” could be employees. Bradley Manning, who is suspected of leaking military documents, was a U.S. soldier, for example. Happy employees don’t leak documents, Loeb said. “WikiLeaks is the cathartic outlet for a disgruntled employee.” Companies should make a point to periodically assess employee sentiment, Loeb said, and make genuine efforts to address points of concern.
Prepare, prepare, prepare
The advent of WikiLeaks is going to force companies to “think about 'what if we’re next?',” Chamberlin said, and prepare for the worse. That means scenario planning, risk assessment, and developing action plans, just as you would for any other disaster. And that means making it a core operational function, not just an afterthought left to the PR department. “Managing your reputation is not about spin and is not a job to be left to public relations professionals,” Chamberlin said. “It is a management function that must begin at the top.”
Follow E.B. Boyd on Twitter.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
In Bush v. Obama, Bush Wins in a Rout
According to Reuters:
President Barack Obama attacked the economic policies of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush in Bush's home state ... as evidence of the way Republicans would operate if given power in Nov. 2 U.S. congressional elections.
At a fund-raising event for Democrats in Dallas, where Bush now lives, Obama said the former president's "disastrous" policies had driven the U.S. economy into the ground and turned budget surpluses into deficits.
Obama defended his repeated references to Bush's policies, saying they were necessary to remind Americans of the weak economy he inherited from Bush in January 2009.
"The policies that crashed the economy, that undercut the middle class, that mortgaged our future, do we really want to go back to that, or do we keep moving our country forward?" Obama said at another fund-raising event in Austin, referring to Bush's eight years as president.
So President Obama describes his predecessor’s policies as “disastrous.” Just for the fun of it, let’s do compare the two records, shall we?
In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.
As for Obama’s claim that Bush “turned a budget surplus into a deficit”: by January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated, the budget surpluses were already evaporating as the economy was skidding toward recession (it officially began in March 2001). Combined with the devastating economic effects of 9/11, when we lost around 1 million jobs over 90 days, the surplus went into deficit.
Rather than whine incessantly about the situation, President Bush proposed policies that triggered the kind of sustained growth that saw the deficit fall to 1 percent of GDP ($162 billion) by 2007. Indeed, before the financial crisis of 2008 – which I’ll return to in a moment — Bush’s budget deficits were 0.6 percentage points below the historical average. (My former White House colleague Keith Hennessey eviscerates Obama’s assertion that we faced a “decade of spiraling deficits” here).
Now let’s consider Mr. Obama’s record: an unemployment rate of 9.5 percent, with 131,000 jobs lost in July, during our so-called Recovery Summer (Vice President Biden promised us up to 500,000 new jobs a month back in April). The overall unemployment rate, incorporating people who want jobs but did not look during July, is now 16.5 percent.
According to J.D. Foster, Obama’s “job deficit” — the difference between current employment and the jobs Obama promised to create by the end of 2010 – stands at a staggering 7.6 million workers. The 2010 deficit is $1.471 trillion, or 10 percent of GDP, while the debt is $9.2 trillion, or 62.7 percent of GDP. (From January 20, 2001, to January 20, 2009, the debt held by the public grew $3 trillion under Bush, from $3.3 trillion to $6.3 trillion; in 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years.) And let’s not forget that the Obama administration passed an $862 billion stimulus package and assured us that unemployment would not exceed 8 percent; instead, unemployment topped 10 percent – a figure higher than what the Obama administration said would occur if the stimulus package wasn’t passed.
Sales of new homes collapsed earlier this year, sinking 33 percent to the lowest level on record (new home sales rose in June from May’s historical low, but the overall pace was still the second slowest on record, the Commerce Department reported.
Not surprisingly, the Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index now stands at 50.4. As a reference point, a reading above 90 indicates that the economy is on solid footing, while above 100 signals strong growth. We also learned on Tuesday that the Federal Reserve, downgrading its assessment of the economy, announced that the pace of recovery is “more modest” than it had anticipated. “The Fed noted that high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth and tight credit were holding back household spending,” according to the Wall Street Journal.
Consider this as well: according to the Obama administration’s own projections, in the first term we’ll see an average unemployment rate of 9.0 percent, real GDP growth of 1.1 percent, federal spending as a percentage of GDP at 24 percent, budget deficits as a percentage of GDP at 7.8 percent, and the deficits as a percentage of GDP at 6.2 percent (see here).
These projections are, across-the-board, depressing.
Now, unlike Obama, whose intellectual dishonesty can be striking at times, some of us are willing to concede that things need to be placed within a proper context. Obama took the oath of office in the wake of a financial collapse that made every economic indicator much worse; it’s only fair to take that into account. But even here, in characterizing what happened, Obama has to present a cartoon image, distorted and disfigured, pretending that it was wholly and completely the fault of President Bush and Republicans.
In fact, it was a complex set of factors that both Republicans and Democrats were complicit in. In addition, it’s worth noting that Democrats were in control of Congress beginning in January 2007 -- and Congress is where legislation, including appropriations and tax legislation, is passed.
Second, spending would have been much higher during the Bush presidency if Democrats had their way. To take just one example: Democrats proposed creating a prescription-drug program as an alternative to the one Bush proposed that would have cost a projected $800 billion over 10 years. The Bush prescription-drug law was originally expected to cost half that amount — and today it costs a third less than initial projections because it uses market forces to drive prices down (see here and here).
Third, Democrats bear the majority of the blame for blocking reforms that could have mitigated the effects of the housing crisis, which in turn led to the broader financial crisis.
As Stuart Taylor put it in 2008:
The pretense of many Democrats that this crisis is altogether a Republican creation is simplistic and dangerous. It is simplistic because Democrats have been a big part of the problem, in part by supporting governmental distortions of the marketplace through mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose reckless lending practices necessitated a $200 billion government rescue [in September 2008]. ... Fannie and Freddie appear to have played a major role in causing the current crisis, in part because their quasi-governmental status violated basic principles of a healthy free enterprise system by allowing them to privatize profit while socializing risk.
The Bush administration warned as early as April 2001 that Fannie and Freddie were too large and overleveraged and that their failure "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity" well beyond housing. Bush’s plan would have subjected Fannie and Freddie to the kinds of federal regulation that banks, credit unions, and savings and loans have to comply with. In addition, Republican Richard Shelby, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE (government-sponsored enterprises) reform in 2005. And who blocked these efforts at reforming Fannie and Freddie? Democrats such as Christopher Dodd and Representative Barney Frank, along with the then-junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who backed Dodd’s threat of a filibuster (Obama was the third-largest recipient of campaign gifts from Fannie and Freddie employees in 2004).
So Obama and his party bear a substantial (though not exclusive) responsibility in creating the economic crisis that Obama himself inherited.
Even if you set all this aside, Obama entered office knowing what he faced, including a deficit and debt that was exploding. And rather than promote policies that accelerated economic growth and began to address our fiscal entitlement crisis, Obama went in exactly the opposite direction. For example, Obama succeeded in passing a massive new entitlement program (ObamaCare) rather than trimming existing ones.
Upon taking office, George W. Bush inherited an economy heading for recession and championed policies that made things better; upon taking office, Barack Obama inherited an economy in a deeper recession and championed policies that have made things worse. That is a key different between the two.
The problem for President Obama is that he and his party cannot escape the record he has amassed. As Karl Rove has written:Voters know it is Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders who approved a $410 billion supplemental (complete with 8,500 earmarks) in the middle of the last fiscal year, and then passed a record-spending budget for this one. Mr. Obama and Democrats approved an $862 billion stimulus and a $1 trillion health-care overhaul, and they now are trying to add $266 billion in "temporary" stimulus spending to permanently raise the budget baseline.
It is the president and Congressional allies who refuse to return the $447 billion unspent stimulus dollars and want to use repayments of TARP loans for more spending rather than reducing the deficit. It is the president who gave Fannie and Freddie carte blanche to draw hundreds of billions from the Treasury. It is the Democrats' profligacy that raised the share of the GDP taken by the federal government to 24% this fiscal year.
This is what Obama has done now that he has been given the keys to the car (to use a favorite metaphor of his). He’s taken us from a ditch, one largely of his and his party’s making, and driven us into the side of mountain.
On his worst day, the economic decisions by Obama’s predecessor were better, more responsible, and more enlightened that anything President Obama has done.
The Economic Urban Legend carefully created by Barack Obama is breaking apart. According to some polls, more Americans now hold Obama responsible for the bad state of the economy than they do Bush. Bush’s favorability ratings are climbing, while Obama’s approval ratings are tumbling. Republican candidates are running on extending Bush’s tax cuts beyond this year. And Democrats now face the prospect of losing both the House and even the Senate in the midterm election. (In Bush’s first midterm election, in 2002, as well as in 2004, Republicans gained seats in both the House and the Senate, only the second time in history that a president’s party gained seats in both chambers in back-to-back elections.)
George W. Bush’s presidency was certainly not perfect; none are. But like Truman before him, Bush’s achievements will be vindicated. Unless he changes course fairly dramatically, I rather doubt the same thing will be said about Mr. Obama.
Monday, November 01, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Pre-Election Office Politics - How Bosses Can Keep the Peace When Reds, Blues (and Other Hues) Get Riled Up
Election Day is one week away, torquing up partisan disputes in the workplace. Hot-button issues—from religion in schools to gay marriage to legalized marijuana—are turning formerly safe conversations into strident, divisive debates.
Campaigns have "become so negative and adversarial that it gets people all riled up," says Deborah Weinstein, a Philadelphia lawyer and adjunct professor of employment law at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. "People will tell a manager or supervisor, 'I am being harassed by so-and-so because I'm part of the tea party,' " she says.
Ms. Weinstein says she's been contacted recently by more than a dozen employers seeking advice on managing political talk at work. She and other workplace specialists counsel that establishing rules of engagement is sometimes necessary. To keep the peace, bosses can simply remind people to focus on their jobs, stress the need to respect others' views or intervene to resolve conflicts between employees, if necessary.
Still, some employers accept political debates as a way of stimulating ideas and honing communication and teamwork. At GMR Marketing in New Berlin, Wis., political differences are treated "like college football rivalries. Just as you would trash talk the other guy's school on a big-game weekend, you make your point in a fun, spirited way," says Greg Busch, an executive vice president at the company.
Lately, the ice-breakers at weekly staff meetings have focused on politics. "Did you see this garbage on TV?" account supervisor Chris Boggs asked co-workers before a last week's meeting, describing an attack ad by a candidate blaming his opponent for trillions of dollars in federal debt. "How is one man responsible?"
A co-worker with opposing views jumped in, and "everybody else said, 'OK, you guys go at it,' " says Mr. Busch, who ran the meeting. "It's one Republican versus one Democrat, and it just becomes sport at that point: Who's the best debater here?" A few minutes later, Mr. Boggs and his opponent agreed to disagree, and everyone got back to work. Mr. Boggs says the debates often end with co-workers "patting each other on the back and saying, 'Good job. You're still 100% wrong, but good job.' "
Other workplace debates are less peaceful. Many of the issues driving current races are deeply emotional, going "back to the family, to cultural loyalties and how you grew up," says Sylvia Lafair, a White Haven, Pa., leadership coach and psychologist. Some campaigns are arousing fears on both sides that basic values are at stake.
About 38% of people say they have been attacked, insulted or called names when discussing politics, says a 2008 survey of 712 people by VitalSmarts, a Provo, Utah, corporate-training company. And only 15% are confident they can express their personal views fully without getting upset.
Private-sector employers aren't required by federal law to protect employees' free-speech rights in the workplace, except on issues covered by fair-labor laws, such as wages. Some states have laws protecting political expression at work. Most employers handle the issue by training managers to resolve conflicts and reminding employees to focus on work.
Trying to find common ground with a political rival can help keep the peace. When a past co-worker learned that David Chamberlin had once worked for a nonprofit that opposed her personal views on abortion, "she specifically said she couldn't work with me," says Mr. Chamberlin, New York, senior vice president for an international public-relations firm. He focused on doing good work and tried to find areas of shared interest, such as health care, and she calmed down, Mr. Chamberlin says.
Other times, co-workers have to be told how they are affecting others. When Mr. Chamberlin's co-worker began introducing him to clients and co-workers as "the arch-conservative," he says, "it was her way of trying to be funny, but it also labeled me very clearly." He eventually explained that the label made him uncomfortable.
Rather than arguing with a co-worker who brings up a contentious topic, try making your point with a personal story, says Susan RoAne, a Greenbrae, Calif., speaker and author of books about communication skills. If you disagree with a fellow employee who is raging about Medicare costs, you might say, "I hate paying taxes too, but for my mother, Medicare has been a godsend." And if a co-worker rants and raves, avoid rising to the same pitch. Instead, she advises, try to "get more centered and more quiet, and less emotional."
The stickiest issues arise when bosses talk politics. Some 35% of bosses openly share their political views with employees, and 9% of employees feel pressure to conform to the boss's views, according to a 2007 survey of 727 workers by Vault.com, an career website.
But some bosses manage to foster open discussions. A conservative on most issues, Tony Clement voices his views freely among his 70 employees at the Campbell., Calif., construction-supply company he owns. "Whether you agree with me or disagree with me," he tells employees, "at least understand what is going on in the world." Denise Harris, an accounts-receivable administrator and a Democrat, says, "I can disagree with Tony's point of view, and we learn from each other."
When Mr. Clement circulated a conservative writer's critique of the Obama administration by email among employees, Michael Brown, a salesman for the company and a Democrat, says he told Mr. Clement "that not everything you read is true."
Mr. Clement says he recently changed his attitude toward gay rights after discussions with Mr. Brown. He realized the issues "were more than two people screaming at each other on TV," Mr. Clement says. Mr. Brown adds: "It's great being able to talk to the owner of the company" about such matters.
Write to Sue Shellenbarger at sue.shellenbarger@wsj.com
Saturday, September 25, 2010
In Defense of the West—and the Third Way; In today's world, a progressive party that stands essentially for big government is not going to succeed.'
Tony Blair believes in "Islamist extremism."
It's U.N. week, and the former British prime minister is in town as the representative of the Quartet—the U.S., Russia, the EU and the U.N.—that aims to broker Mideast peace. We are in his suite at a posh Upper East Side hotel, talking about a passage in his just-published memoir in which he discusses the reach of the radical Islamist "narrative." It's a narrative, he argues, that needs to be "challenged head on."
This prompts me to ask whether he thinks that the widespread reluctance to use the word "Islamist" alongside the word "extremist" is a kind of evasion from reality.
"I think it is, I'm afraid," Mr. Blair answers, deploying the famously elegant diction that used to make for such invidious contrasts in the days when he shared a podium with George W. Bush. By way of explanation, he turns to the recent, aborted attempt by Florida Pastor Terry Jones to burn the Quran.
"I have no difficulty in saying this person is a Christian pastor but I completely and totally disagree with him," he explains. "It's fascinating, though, that when that happens the whole of the Western leadership have to come out and denounce it. . . . Let's say some cleric in some remote part of Pakistan turns up and says, 'I'm going to burn the Bible tomorrow.' What would we all say?"
Mr. Blair has been out of office for more than three years, but he is still sounding the same themes that were the touchstones of his decade in office. He is still faithful to the Third Way school of politics, still believes that government should be for empowerment not entitlement, and is still fighting a rear-guard action against fellow "progressives" who think it ought to be the other way round. But above all, Mr. Blair remains seized by the scope of the challenge posed by radical Islam.
"I think there is a tendency to regard the activities of the extremists who use terrorism and suicide bombings and so on as this small group of people unrelated to the broader [Muslim] community in which they exist," he says. "And I feel that narrative penetrates a lot deeper. And if you can't take that narrative on, you are left in a position where you end up semi-apologizing for your own position in relation to these things. And I think that's dangerous."
The narrative, as Mr. Blair describes it, consists of the view that the West is in cahoots with its client regimes in the Middle East—not just Israel, but also countries like Pakistan, Egypt and the Gulf emirates—to oppress Muslims and denigrate Islam. That narrative has its own subscribers among Western leaders and opinion-makers who believe the right approach is to say, in Mr. Blair's mocking paraphrase, "We kind of understand why you feel like this about us and maybe it's our fault but, you know, let's try and work this out."
Mr. Blair has little patience with this view: It rubs him wrong not only because he believes the analysis is flawed and the prescription misguided, but also—and here I'm reading between the lines—because it suggests Muslims should be held to a different set of standards and values.
Yes, he says, the Muslim world needs "genuine demonstrations of equality, respect, partnership and so on." That's one reason, he adds, why he puts so much stock in the Israeli-Arab peace process. But Mr. Blair also stresses that what the Muslim world—or at last the modernizing forces within it—need from the West is "for us to be really strong about our own confidence in our position, our own way of life and the values we represent."
Part of that confidence is affirming the rightness of what the U.S., Britain and the rest of the Coalition of the Willing did in Iraq—and what they continue to do in Afghanistan. Regarding the so-called occupation of Iraq, Mr. Blair notes that from the middle of 2003 coalition forces were in the country "with full U.N. authority." The international community followed up with billions in aid to the country. Democratic elections were held; Iraqis indicated the kind of future they wanted for their country.
And then the effort nearly fell apart on account of the unremitting savagery of Baathist holdouts, al Qaeda recruits, and Iranian-backed militias. Mr. Blair would like to know why Iraq's tormentors should be let off the hook while its liberators are vilified. "For us to end up in this situation where people say this is an indication that you should never have gone there, that you should have just let Saddam stay—we really need to think about what we're saying when we're saying that."
Mr. Blair feels the same way about the apportionment of blame in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is confident of the good intentions of both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (about whom, he adds, he is "absolutely sure [he] would sign a deal"). But he is also mindful of the way Israel is mindlessly castigated in the West, "particularly in Europe," for its every misstep, real or alleged.
"You cannot refuse to accept that Israel has a genuine security problem," he insists. "What does it mean when, the other day, President Obama launches the [Israeli-Palestinian] talks in the White House . . . and Hamas kill those [Israelis], including a pregnant woman and the parents of six children, and then put out a statement saying that this is an heroic act of courage? What does it say of the nature of what we're up against?"
Mr. Blair is equally emphatic about the need to confront Iran, which in his memoir he treats as morally equivalent to al Qaeda. Though he says he agrees with President Obama's approach to the regime—summed up as "here's a hand of friendship and now it's your choice"—he is under no illusions about the threat Iran poses. He is particularly enraged at the role it played in Iraq, including the supply of IEDs to insurgent forces that killed British and American troops. Might things in Iraq have gone better had the coalition confronted Iran's meddling sooner than it did? "I think that's a very, very good question," he replies.
The interview turns to the subject of Tehran's nuclear program. Could an Iran with nuclear weapons be contained, I ask, as it is now so fashionable to argue?
"I wouldn't take that risk," he replies without hesitation. "It is perfectly possible that a nuclear-armed Iran might be contained. But I think it's impossible to guarantee that, and it so drastically changes the balance of power within the region that it's not responsible" to allow it.
I say that sounds like he'd be prepared to countenance military strikes if other options fail.
Mr. Blair hedges for a moment: "When I'm asked this, [I always] default to the traditional line, which is to say I don't think you can take any option off the table."
I press: "But it sounds like you actually mean it."
He comes back more firmly: "I do mean it. . . . The alternative is to say that you are prepared to contemplate [a nuclear Iran], which, by the way, the moment you send that signal makes it a lot more likely to happen. So I think it's perfectly possible that we can avoid the situation. But I think the stronger and clearer we are, the more likely we are to avoid it."
Mr. Blair's tenure in office—begun, as he accurately puts it in his memoir, as a veritable love affair between him and the British electorate—is widely believed to have soured precisely because he holds these foreign policy views and was willing to act on them. Given that the Labour Party in Britain and the Democrats in the U.S. have now turned their back on the Third Way politics that gave Mr. Blair and Bill Clinton their resounding electoral victories, I wonder whether those politics would not have been more in vogue today had it not been for Iraq.
Mr. Blair demurs. "People forget this, but the closest I came to losing my job in a [parliamentary] vote was actually over tuition fees [for university students], and not over Iraq. The most difficult things were . . . introducing private-sector [reforms] into the health-care system, introducing academy schools, the equivalent of charter schools, and law and order."
It's a useful reminder. When Mr. Blair and Gordon Brown first came to office, the New Labour moniker was widely suspected of being a kind of political marketing device rather than representing a real change of heart by a party that had once been a de facto subsidiary of Britain's trade unions. But if Mr. Blair's memoir is anything to go by, he for one was a sincere convert to the New Labour faith. Among other things, it explains his current opposition to high rates of marginal taxation.
"The most important thing is to encourage strong growth, for the economy to create wealth. And I just think this is a very basic point . . . you need tax rates that are competitive with the world in which we live and in which people's hard work and enterprise is rewarded." As for the notion that the purpose of progressive governance is to tax the wealthy and redistribute it to the rest, Mr. Blair urges caution: "The people you end up hitting are not the very wealthy, because in my experience the very wealthy can make their own arrangements."
Mr. Blair is similarly worried about the perils of excessive regulation. While he believes that governments were right to respond to the financial crisis as they initially did, he worries that the recovery runs the risk of regulatory strangulation. "How you stabilize the economy is not the same as how you then get it let out of the crisis and back to strong growth, where you will need the private sector to be enterprising, innovative and able to compete." Nor does he have any patience with the demonization of the financial sector as "the bad guys" in the crisis.
The question arises of how Mr. Blair—a prep school boy and Oxford graduate who came to the Labour Party more from its intellectually Fabian wing than from the trade union movement—came by his views. Partly it's to do with his own father's rise from working-class roots, and partly by the pre-political years he spent as a commercial and industrial-relations lawyer, where he learned that "most people aspire to do better and most people actually want their kids to do better than them—and these are actually great engines of growth and progress."
But he also says his views are informed by traveling to emerging economies such as China. "These are all places where, if we're not careful, they are going to learn the lessons of our development and, funnily enough, they're not going to replicate all those lessons. . . . They will learn from our successes as well as our mistakes. And if we're not careful, they are going to leave us behind."
So much of what Mr. Blair says is so consonant with the political right-of-center that I ask him if he doesn't feel closer to John McCain politically than to Barack Obama. He laughs it off, calling himself a straight "Democrat-Labour" kind of guy. But elsewhere in the interview he offers a political warning to his fellow progressives:
"In today's world, in the 21st century, a progressive party that stands essentially for the state and big government is not going to succeed. Simple as that." I wonder if anyone in the White House is listening.
Mr. Stephens writes the Journal's Global View column.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Armstrong maintains high public profile
Lance Armstrong will appear on ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and a slew of cable channels simultaneously Friday evening in a pre-taped segment for the celebrity-stocked "Stand Up To Cancer" telethon. He'll participate in a panel discussion and rub shoulders with heads of state and corporate VIPs at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City next week. Sometime before the end of 2010, he plans to join a State Department-sanctioned group that will visit Haiti to assess care for chronically ill people in the earthquake-stricken country.
On Oct. 2, the anniversary of Armstrong's 1996 testicular cancer diagnosis, his eponymous foundation, now known as Livestrong, will stage nationwide grassroots events related to survivorship and wellness. And later in the month, Armstrong will honor the foundation's top donors at his annual Ride for the Roses weekend in Austin, Texas.
The seven-time Tour de France winner does not appear to be ratcheting down his public profile or crossing anything off his schedule even as federal investigators continue to probe allegations of organized doping and fraud against Armstrong and some of his current and former team officials.
Foundation CEO Doug Ulman said none of the events were booked as a reaction to the investigation, and added, "There was never a minute's discussion of 'Should we do this or not?'"
Experts in crisis communications say that by going about his normal business and not ducking the spotlight, Armstrong is proceeding in exactly the way they would expect -- indirectly trying to influence public opinion, and by extension, perhaps even prosecutorial discretion.
"Anything else would send the wrong message,'' said Jim Haggerty, president and CEO of the PR Consulting Group in New York, which advises clients on communications strategies in high-profile lawsuits. "From a perception standpoint, anything that might make you look guilty makes you guilty.''
David Chamberlin, senior vice president and director of issues and crisis management for the New York-based MS&L Group, said Armstrong has built up a huge reservoir of public goodwill because of his association with the foundation, but noted that will only go so far if the facts don't support him.
"I tell my clients to just be honest, be truthful, because if you're not, it comes back and bites you,'' Chamberlin said. "He's said what he's said over and over again. If it turns out that he lied, he has bigger problems.''
Armstrong's lead criminal defense attorney, Bryan Daly, has said he fears the foundation could be hurt if the current legal limbo drags on. There is potential jeopardy on two fronts now: a Food and Drug Administration investigation backed by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, and a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by former teammate Floyd Landis that remains under seal as the Department of Justice weighs whether to get involved.
Daly and Mark Fabiani, the lawyer/spokesman hired by Armstrong earlier this summer, have repeatedly tried to hammer home the notion that the probes are an unwarranted use of public funds. They hope that message, coupled with Armstrong's continued high visibility, will resonate with the public. Whether that would or could influence the path of the federal investigations is another question, and those doing the investigating aren't talking.
IPO could generate big funds
Armstrong's return to professional cycling in 2009 after three years in retirement helped the foundation's bottom line in a sagging economy. According to figures provided by the foundation, revenues from donations ($12 million) and merchandise sales ($3.5 million) from January through August of this year are up 2 and 10 percent, respectively, from the same period the previous year. (In 2009, the first year of Armstrong's comeback, revenues from those two sources spiked 29 and 44 percent higher than in 2008 in those eight months.) The number of individual donations is up from last year, but the average amount of each donation has declined slightly, a trend Ulman attributed to economic factors.
The foundation's finances -- and that of Armstrong himself -- could get a boost soon, thanks to a business deal struck in January 2008. At that time, the social media/content provider Demand Media acquired perpetual licensing rights to use the foundation's registered trademark as a commercial domain name. Shortly afterward, Demand launched the for-profit website Livestrong.com, which features stories and interactive features about fitness, diet and mental health issues, among others.
In return, Demand gave the foundation perpetual rights to use its proprietary social media platform on its website, Livestrong.org, and guaranteed that it would drive a certain amount of traffic to the nonprofit site. Armstrong and Demand entered a separate agreement under which Armstrong became a "strategic advisor and ongoing content contributor" to Livestrong.com for the next four years. The joint announcement also disclosed that Armstrong and the foundation had acquired unspecified equity stakes in Demand.
Privately held Demand last month filed documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicating the company's intention to raise capital through an initial public offering of its stock. The S-1 filing for the IPO shows the foundation holds 1.25 million warrants -- which give the holder the right to buy, but no obligation -- to purchase shares of Demand at a price of $6. Armstrong personally holds 1,062,500 warrants at the same price, and his management company, Capital Sports and Entertainment, holds 187,500. The warrants must be exercised by the end of the first day of the public offering and then can be resold or held at the owner's discretion.
IPOs don't always go forward if market conditions aren't right, and there's no guarantee that the price of the stock would exceed the warrant price -- although it wouldn't take much for the foundation and Armstrong to realize a substantial profit.
Two heads of charity watchdog groups that rate nonprofit organizations said the deal's apparent bundling of Armstrong's personal financial interests with those of the foundation troubled them.
"This blurs the lines between the foundation and its charitable mission, and the personal gain of its founder,'' said Ken Berger, president and executive director of Charity Navigator. "It's mixing two purposes in a way that smells of a conflict of interest. The most precious thing a charitable organization has is the public's trust, and things like this put a chink in that.''
Daniel Borochoff, founder and president of the American Institute of Philanthropy in Chicago, said he was uncomfortable with the arrangement, especially because Armstrong remains chairman of the board of the foundation. "Nonprofits have to be concerned not only with actual conflicts of interest, but the appearance of conflicts of interest,'' Borochoff said.
Dean Zerbe, an expert on charity regulations and former tax counsel to the Senate Finance Committee, had another view: "It's a different relationship, but I wouldn't immediately label it as suspect or wrong." He said many nonprofits license their trademarks, and his chief question would be whether the foundation received fair compensation and was not unduly influenced by Armstrong's talks with Demand.
"I can legitimately see a company saying, 'We want both of them,'" said Zerbe, national managing director at alliantgroup, a tax advisory firm. "He's unique because he has value, and he's so intertwined with the trademark.''
Los Angeles-based attorney Doug Mancino, who specializes in representing nonprofit organizations, vetted the Demand deal for the foundation as its outside counsel. He said that the two transactions were negotiated on a parallel track but completely separately, and that Armstrong recused himself from any decisions made by the foundation board. The value of the trademark as a commercial domain name was determined in an independent analysis by intellectual property attorneys, and Mancino said he was satisfied that the foundation received full worth.
Ulman said he views the Demand relationship as one of several "innovative, entrepreneurial" steps the foundation has taken in tandem with corporate partners that also have relationships with Armstrong. Livestrong.com is "furthering our mission in significant ways,'' he said.
Texas legislator seeks investigation's end
Armstrong's lawyers have said they will refrain from lobbying politicians or policy makers to try to get the investigations quashed, although they acknowledge they hope to draw support for their contention that the allegations against Armstrong are not a matter for the government to explore.
Daly said that making a direct pitch to elected and appointed officials could easily backfire. "We have no plans to reach out to legislators, but if anyone has a question, we will answer it," Fabiani said.
From a crisis communications vantage point, Chamberlin agreed. "If that were to become public, it makes it look like he's trying to get out of something instead of facing the music,'' he said. But Chamberlin said he had no doubt that Armstrong has "naturally" made numerous connections in politics and policy circles through his foundation work and his celebrity.
The first shot over the bow may have come from Texas State Rep. Allen Vaught, a Democrat who represents east Dallas. Vaught said he does not know Armstrong personally but was familiar with him through the cyclist's campaign to pass a 2007 state cancer research funding ballot initiative, Proposition 15.
Vaught told ESPN.com that a conversation with a constituent he met while campaigning door-to-door prompted him to write a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg protesting the premise of the agency's investigation. The probe is being led by Jeff Novitzky, the same agent who spearheaded the BALCO steroids investigation when he worked for the Internal Revenue Service.
In the Aug. 26 letter, Vaught said he was skeptical about the allegations against Armstrong, but "more upset that taxpayer resources might be used in this matter. We have millions of contaminated eggs, peanut products possibly contaminated with [pesticides], seafood possibly made toxic by benzene contamination from the BP oil spill and prescription medications that are unsafe for end users. During these challenging times, the FDA should be using taxpayer resources to address those issues and other pressing life-and-death matters, and not a retired athlete.''
The waste-of-money argument has been made recently by many high-profile athletes and officials facing charges or accusations, and is always more effective in times when the economy is suffering, Haggerty said. "It's the argument du jour,'' he said.
There is certainly precedent for such investigations in other countries -- although it's also true that laws regulating the use of performance-enhancing drugs and techniques vary wildly from nation to nation. Law enforcement authorities in France, Austria, Italy, Germany and Spain have gone to some lengths to try to crack doping cases.
The fiscal argument has been a largely one-sided dialogue so far because federal authorities won't comment on their reasoning, much less their expenditures. Similarly, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency chief executive officer Travis Tygart refused comment on the Armstrong investigation or any ongoing case, but he vigorously defended the government's right to explore such cases.
"Fraud, corruption and drug use are criminal, dangerous and potentially life-threatening activities that would not be tolerated in any other important social institution in our country,'' Tygart wrote in an e-mailed response to ESPN.com.
"In fact, clean athletes and those that value corruption-free sport have asked that more resources, not less, be devoted to ensure that their rights, as well as the integrity and values of our national pastimes, be fully protected.''
Bonnie D. Ford covers tennis and Olympic sports for ESPN.com. She can be reached at bonniedford@aol.com.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Mercy live premiere in Zurich
I was drinking some wine and it turned to blood
What's the use of religion if you're any good
I know I'm weed killer, honey, and you're sugar
If you're the prosecution I get away with murder
If you were ice, I'm water
And with your telescope I can see further
We're binary code, a one and a zero
You wanted violins and you got Nero
You're gravity searching for the ground
You're silence searching for a sound
Your heart is aching, your heart is my home
It's fascinating, I know Ill never be alone
I'm ripping the stitches
We've got two hands to rub
I'm digging the ditches
Of someone else's love
Love heals when I lie
Love puts the blue back in my eye
Love will come again
I'll be gone again
Again
If you hunger, baby let me feed it
If your heart is full, baby let me bleed it
And happiness is for those who don't really need it
You love me too much
You always love me too much
When I was ripping the stitches
We've got two hands to rub
I'm digging the ditches
Of someone elses luck
Love heals when I lie
Love puts the blue back in my eye
Love has come again
I am gone again
Love has got to be with the weak
Only then love gets a chance to speak
Love will come again
I'll be gone again
Again
I, I can't escape myself
I'll hear you talk
Fear nothing
I fear nothing
Fear
How can someone fear nothing
How can someone fear nothing
Love is come again
I am gone again
Love is the end of history
The enemy of misery
Love is come again
I am gone again
Love is justice, not charity
Love brings with it a clarity
Love is come again
I'm alive again
Alive
I am alive
Baby, I'm born again
And again and again and again
And again and again
Again
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Blair: Bono “could have been a president or prime minister”
Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has some strong praise for Bono in Blair’s just-released memoir, A Journey. He says Bono “could have been a president or prime minister standing on his head.” Here’s a snapshot of the full paragraph sent in by @U2 reader Neil W.
Trust Breakdown, Trust Refresh: A Lesson from Banks
In Cleveland Vs. Wall Street, Swiss filmmaker Jean-Stéphane Bron captures the pain of ordinary people hit by the financial crisis. As the film’s mock trial progresses, he demonstrates how people come together to save their community. Yet he also clearly portrays people’s anger over banks, which leads us to the MSLGROUP study: “The banking industry in post-crisis times: From vanished trust to evidence-based credibility.”
To fully understand this dynamic, and to better serve our clients, MSLGROUP conducted an eight-week research project on the state of the financial services industry.
We conducted a comprehensive media and data review, talked with financial experts and conducted an online survey in partnership with Linkfluence in the USA, UK, France, Germany and China. We analyzed the tone of blogs in these countries, and listened to opinions on who is to blame for the crisis and what should be done now.
In a series of blog posts, found in the Reputation Management category, we will share with you what we learned. In short, banks are mostly to blame for the financial crisis, and some institutions may never fully recover.
As our colleague David Chamberlin, SVP and director of issue and crisis management at MSL North America says, “ The destruction of wealth we have witnessed through the global crisis appears to be easing. But the destruction of brand equity and reputation among financial institutions show no sign of relenting.”
And these insights are easily applicable to other industries, for let’s not forget the “trust crisis” that BP is experiencing.
In our next blog post, we will discuss our “Value for All” proposition and what it means for your brand.
For more information on the MSLGROUP research project and results, please contact Chief Strategy Officer Pascal Beucler at pascal.beucler@mslgroup.com or +33 1 57 32 86 66.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Theology, Culture and U2
I still have room for more students in the class, so if you're in the Fresno, CA area and have Tuesdays from 3:30-5:05 free and want to take it for credit or just audit let me know.
For texts we'll be using Bono in Conversation with Michka Assayas and Get Up Off Your Knees: Preaching the U2 Catalog by Beth Maynard (over at U2 Sermons) and Raewynne J. Whiteley. Beth has been a great friend and somewhat of an inspiration for the class.
Here is a flyer for the course. Here is the the syllabus. And here is the class reading and topic schedule."
