Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (225907)	2/6/2002 11:54:32 PM
From: alan w	Respond to of 769670

Smithsonian loses out on $38m donation over 'dumbing-down' claims By Rupert Cornwell 07 February 2002 It was the day the cheque hit the fan at the Smithsonian, when Washington's most venerable and most famous museum effectively turned down a $38m (£27m) donation for a proposed exhibit from a benefactor, saying that it, not the benefactor, should decide what went in it. The episode, involving the businesswoman and philanthropist Catherine Reynolds, is the latest instalment of a feud, that increasingly disturbs the usually quiet corridors of the American museum world, over the fear of "commercialisation", whereby the contents of a show or permanent exhibit are dictated by the wealthy, usually corporate, interest which sponsors it. Ms Reynolds had a simple and apparently appealing idea, a permanent "Spirit of America" exhibit, with a "Hall of Achievers" demonstrating the power of the individual to shape history. Up to 100 personalities were to be featured, among them, it was rumoured, the civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Michael Jordan the basketball superstar and the talkshow queen Oprah Winfrey. All, it is said, were admired by Ms Reynolds because they "inspired" her. Above all the exhibit was aimed at children. Its intention, she said, was to enable them to learn the true stories behind popular heroes. The $38m was pledged last May, and the 10,000 sq ft exhibit was scheduled to open in 2004. When the donation was announced, the Smithsonian's secretary, Lawrence Small, called it "an extraordinary gift." But in mid-January 170 activists and scholars, in a group called "Commercial Alert," complained that he was turning the institution's august chambers into an extension of corporate America. In effect, the academic purists charged, Mr Small was allowing Ms Reynolds to dictate programmes to the institution, "sacrificing the Smithsonian's independence and integrity." Ms Reynolds tried to negotiate a compromise, but concluded one was impossible. Informing the Smithsonian of the withdrawal of the $38m, she said criticism by its staff that the exhibit's focus was on individuals rather than groups was the reason she had changed her mind. "Apparently, the basic philosophy for the exhibit – the power of the individual to make a difference – is the antithesis of that espoused by many within the Smithsonian bureaucracy, which is that only movements and institutions make a difference, not individuals," she wrote. "After much contemplation, I see no way to reconcile these diametrically-opposed philosophical viewpoints." Established in 1846, following a bequest by Britain's James Smithson, the Smithsonian is an independent trust, the comprising 16 museums, as well as the National Zoo in Washington and research facilities in the US and abroad. Ms Reynolds is a former financial services executive who sold her company to Wells Fargo bank. Her foundation is worth an estimated $500m. Courtesy Drudge

To: greenspirit who wrote (225907)	2/7/2002 12:44:25 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Our real protection against future Enrons Steve Chapman February 7, 2002 When a bank gets robbed, members of Congress don't stand up and demand better alarms, vaults and security guards. They accept that human nature being what it is, banks will always attract robbers. But when investors get robbed by a corporation, the instant consensus is that we need the federal government to tell people how to run their business. The scandal enveloping Enron and Arthur Andersen has been a perfect excuse for Democrats to deplore the excesses of capitalism. Even Republicans are joining the chorus. In his State of the Union address, President Bush declared, "Corporate America must be made more accountable to employees and shareholders and held to the highest standards of conduct." Writing in U.S. News & World Report, former Reagan and Clinton administration aide David Gergen, an infallible barometer of conventional wisdom in Washington, says, "Like it or not, the government is the best instrument we have for protecting the public interest, and it is to government we should turn now." Actually, we have all sorts of instruments for protecting both public and private interests from corporate buccaneers. That they didn't prevent the Enron debacle doesn't prove the need for greater government involvement -- any more than the existence of U.S. News & World Report means we should repeal the First Amendment. The common trait of all systems designed or operated by human beings is that they have failures. None is foolproof. How do we guard against corporate theft, fraud and chicanery? The prospect of losing your job, disgracing your name, and seeing most of your personal wealth go up the chimney is enough to keep most top executives on the straight and narrow. For others, we have criminal sanctions, which could mean that some of the Enron principals could be reunited in federal prison. The sight of once-mighty executives being hauled away in handcuffs would deter a lot of misconduct at other companies. Some larcenous companies will take the risk, figuring they can get away with it. That's why we have accountants: to notice financial shenanigans and put a stop to them. In the case of Enron, though, Arthur Andersen apparently was either oblivious or complicit. Critics say that's because it was not only auditing the company's books but providing consulting services that it might have lost had the auditors squawked. Therefore, we are told, the feds should bar accounting firms from selling both auditing and consulting services to the same client. At this point, a regulation would be superfluous. Since the Enron meltdown, all of the Big Five accounting firms have announced major changes in how they do business. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, the last of the group to act, said this week it would separate the two businesses to remove any potential conflict. Accountants, like chief financial officers, are not all scrupulously honest. Some may be willing to wink at big, honking financial scams for a valued client. But as Arthur Andersen has learned, the cost of being seen as an accomplice to business malpractice can be ruinous. Any money the firm made from Enron is paltry compared to all the money it will lose thanks to the association. In 2002, how many corporate directors would want their company to hire Enron's accountants? Ah, yes -- corporate directors. Where were they when Enron CFO Andrew Fastow was becoming, in the words of one congressman, "the Betty Crocker of cooked books"? Well, the Enron board was tamely suspending conflict-of-interest rules to permit some of the deals he concocted to hide corporate debt. The directors will be rewarded in various ways for sleeping through the hijacking of Enron. One is that for the rest of their days, they'll carry the distinction of helping cause the biggest bankruptcy in American history. Even worse, they can expect to spend most of their waking hours meeting with lawyers, giving depositions and sitting through civil trials. Their lives may never again be their own. True, company insurance policies may shield them against much of the financial risk, but those policies usually don't provide unlimited protection. So some of the directors may get to face their own bankruptcy. As a result, you can be sure that every board of directors is far more diligent today than it was before. And you can be sure that boards across America are looking hard for ways to assure they get the information they need to do their job. Many Enron critics think that the alternative to more government controls is tolerating continued bamboozling by corporate swindlers. But a lot of people in the private sector have been newly invigorated to watch out for serious mismanagement. The self-interest of people with their money and their good names on the line will do more than new legislation or new regulations to protect us from the next Enron. Contact Steve Chapman ©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc. townhall.com

To: greenspirit who wrote (225907)	2/7/2002 1:11:38 AM
From: JEB	Respond to of 769670

David M. Walker, the head of the GAO is also a board member of Arthur Anderson? What kind of weird game is this? This is sick? This guy should be being grilled by Congress on his involvement. This is sick!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...and the Democrats put him up to this witch hunt? This is sick!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...the Republicans need to subpoena this guy as part of the investigation. Fry him!

To: greenspirit who wrote (225907)	2/7/2002 1:15:25 AM
From: JEB	Respond to of 769670

On second thought, they got him already. It will be on record in the court papers. The Republicans will have leverage with that, ...he's already being cooked like a frog.