JANUARY BOUNCE
A month ago, I suggested three possible
year-end bargains. The most speculative,
CICI, closed last night at 65 cents,
up 80% or so. If I were you, I’d sell a third of it here, a
second third at 90 cents, if it should ever get there, and hold the last third long-term
to see what happens. (I would not rush
to buy it here – it remains highly speculative.) The next most speculative, ILA, closed last night at $4.39, up 25%.
I plan to hold it for a year or more, hoping the company may one day
return to health and a significantly higher valuation. The third, CMM – itself no blue-chip – closed last night at $11.31, up 10%.
I plan to hold this one for a long time, also.
As always, please
remember that free advice is worth what you pay for it. Indeed, sometimes it is worth considerably less.
TWO CONSERVATIVE VIEWS
“Whatever else this president
is,” writes conservative columnist Andrew
Sullivan in commenting on Tuesday’s State of the Union message, “he is no
believer in individuals’ running their own lives without government regulation,
control or aid. If you're a fiscal
conservative or a social liberal, this was a speech that succeeded in making
you take a second look at the Democrats. I sure am.”
A while back I ran a blind quote from a
prominent conservative who had e-mailed in dismay over the performance of the Bush
administration. One of you wrote in to
say he believed I had made it up, and that if I wanted
anyone to believe it was real, I would have to name the source. Unfortunately, the fellow who sent the e-mail
is not ready to go public with his view – it’s a pretty big life-decision to
make, and my little column may not be the place he would choose to do it, if he
ever does – but the e-mail I quoted from was quite real. As is this one, from the same correspondent, which
arrived yesterday:
Apparently, today's NY
Times is FINALLY beginning to report a few early strands of just how angry
conservatives are with the lunatics running the country. For a few years,
I've been a member of a very high-end restricted-circulation email group,
heavily tilted toward the Right, overwhelmingly pro-Iraq War, and with
substantial numbers of intellectuals, academics, and journalists. My
guess is that about 18 months ago, 80% of the list members would have voted for
Bush over just about any Democrat. In
the last couple of weeks, nearly the last Bush supporters announced their
opposition to his reelection.
Needless to say, I take this
as good news. I think, at the end of the
day, the voters will favor the Democrat over Bush by a considerably wider margin than
they did last time. Another reason I
think so is Iowa: there was a huge influx of new voters to the caucus
process – something like 50% of the caucus-goers were first-timers, I'm told –
and, if true, this bodes very, very well for Democrats.
If enough become concerned, alarmed, and engaged, turn-out for the general
election may spike up around the country as it did for the primary in
Iowa.
A LIBERAL VIEW
Q: How do you get
rid of a bush?
A: From the roots.
And, finally, for
your weekend delectation . . .
A VIEW YOU WON’T HEAR EXPRESSED ON CBS
From the network
that didn’t bring you the Ronald Reagan docudrama, now fails to come the
30-second ad that moveon.org was trying to
pay $1.6 million to run.
To me, the
prospect of a complete rightwing lock on all three branches of government, if
we should elect Bush/Ashcroft November 2, becomes even more disturbing when you
consider the increasing concentration and clout of the conservative media. Most of talk radio . . . FOX . . . and now an
increasingly cowed CBS? Bill Paley must be turning over in his grave.
Many of you have doubtless
already gotten this e-mail, either directly from moveon.org or else from a
friend. But for those who missed it, and
who care about democracy:
During this year's
Super Bowl, you'll see ads sponsored by beer companies, tobacco companies, and
the Bush White House.1 But you won't see the winning ad in MoveOn.org Voter
Fund's Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest. CBS refuses to air it.2
Meanwhile, the White
House is on the verge of signing into law a deal which Senator John McCain
(R-AZ) says is custom-tailored for CBS and Fox,3 allowing the two networks to grow much bigger. CBS
lobbied hard for this rule change; MoveOn.org members across the country
lobbied against it; and now our ad has been rejected while the White House ad
will be played. It looks an awful lot like CBS is playing politics with the
right to free speech.
Of course, this is
bigger than just the MoveOn.org Voter Fund. People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA) submitted an ad that was also rejected.4 But this isn't even a progressive-vs.-conservative issue.
The airwaves are publicly owned, so we have a fundamental right to hear
viewpoints from across the ideological spectrum. That's why we need to let CBS
know that this practice of arbitrarily turning down ads that may be "controversial"
-- especially if they're controversial simply because they take on the
President -- just isn't right.
To watch the ad that
CBS won't air and sign our petition to CBS, go to:
http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/
(If you want to skip
the ad and just sign the petition, click
here.)
We'll deliver the
petition by email directly to CBS headquarters.
You also may want to
let your local CBS affiliate know you're unhappy about this decision. We've
attached a list of the CBS affiliates in your state at the bottom of this
email. Remember, a polite, friendly call will be most effective -- just explain
to them why you believe CBS' decision hurts our democracy.
CBS will claim that
the ad is too controversial to air. But the message of the ad is a simple
statement of fact, supported by the President's own figures. Compared with
2002's White House ad which claimed that drug users are supporting terrorism,5 it hardly even registers.
CBS will also claim
that this decision isn't an indication of political bias. But given the facts,
that's hard to believe. CBS overwhelmingly favored Republicans in its political
giving, and the company spent millions courting the White House to stop FCC
reform.6 According to a well-respected study, CBS News was second only to
Fox in failing to correct common misconceptions about the Iraq war which
benefited the Bush Administration -- for example, the idea that Saddam Hussein
was involved with 9/11.7
This is not a partisan
issue. It's critical that our media institutions be fair and open to all
speakers. CBS is setting a dangerous precedent, and unless we speak up, the
pattern may continue. Please call on CBS to air ads which address issues of
public importance today.
Sincerely,
--Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn.org Team
January 22nd, 2003
P.S. Our friends at
Free Press have put together a page which explains simply how CBS and the FCC
rule change are integrally linked. Check it out here.