Ski weekend at Mt. Ruapehu

A month ago we tried to go skiing at Mt. Ruapehu but were frustrated by high winds and so much snow that the roads leading to the base were closed. This past weekend we had better luck and were able to ski in the southern hemisphere for the first time. This winter has been more rainy than usual and there has been a bounty of snow in the Southern Alps and at the North Island’s Mt. Ruapehu. This still active volcano has two ski fields, Turoa and Whakapapa (‘wh’ in Maori is pronounced ‘ph’ so be careful how you say that) and we skied the latter.

How does it compare with skiing in the U.S? I’ve only skied in the Northeast and never sampled any of that magnificent powder in the Rockies of which I’ve heard a great deal. Whakapapa has big wide bowl skiing and that is not the kind of terrain you would find in Vermont. We liked being able to do nice wide traverses but the steeper grade was a bit more challenging than we would have preferred. Throughout the slopes there were numerous boulders that must have been blown out of the volcano during its frequent eruptions (it erupted briefly last summer). The ski field is above the tree line with an almost 4 meter snow base so most of the rocks must have been covered over. I think that because of the amount of snow some of the trail signs must have been buried and were hard to see. It snowed frequently on Saturday with whiteout conditions at times that made a coward of me. I generally prefer to see where I’m going when I’m on skis and appreciate precipitous drops off better when I’m watching someone else handle them while watching extreme skiing on TV. Overall the mountain is suited to a more advanced skier with not so many trails for intermediates.

Sunday was the better of the two days with brilliant sunshine that highlighted the beauty of the jagged ridges. The air was so clear that we could see Mt. Taranaki, some 120 kilometres distant. Its uppermost cone was bisected by a very thin layer of wispy clouds that emphasized the high elevation we were at (about 2,000 meters). It might not have been the best skiing ever but it was worth it for the view alone.

A working class hero is something to be

Somehow I missed out on this recent period of time when Hillary Clinton became a working class hero and a conservative Democrat. Have I missed something over the past year? I should explain my perspective. I’m a born and raised New Yawker who in June of 2007 came to Wellington New Zealand to work on an assignment for a firm here. I have a 2 year work visa but I will be re-examining my long term plans sometime after the 2^nd week of November 2008.

Since I left, there appears to have been a major disturbance in the space time continuum that has resulted in Hillary Clinton becoming the champion of blue collar, lesser educated Reagan Democrats in opposition to the liberal elitist latte drinking and arugula eating, leftist Harvard Law grad Barack Obama and his supporters. I’m using actual adjectives here that I’ve seen used on blog forums here at Times.com and elsewhere in the blogosphere to describe HRC’s opposition. I’ve already heard about her blue collar grandfather but I thought she was the daughter of an upper middle class family who attended Wellesley and Yale Law School? Please don’t take this the wrong way. My favourite American President was a man who came from a family of such established blue bloodedness that they make the Bushes to appear as if they just got off the boat at Ellis Island. Everything about his comportment and demeanour, from the way he affected an elegant cigarette holder to his unabashed Harvard accent exuded elite Waspishness. Yet the American working class never had such a friend as with this man who defied his upbringing, reached out to this constituency – back then referred to as the forgotten man, and was branded a “traitor to his class” by many of his resentful peers. Personally I wouldn’t mind a little bit of enlightened noblesse oblige right now from an FDR type after almost 8 years of the down home cowboy from Crawford (by way of Phillips Academy and Yale). I have an undergrad degree from one of the SUNY colleges. I feel that I received a good education from this school and that my four years there was not without academic rigor but I would never deride the accomplishment of someone acquiring a degree from one of the prestigious schools. I must admit though that I’ve developed as of late a little bit of scepticism about the value of the education offered by the Harvard Business School since it doesn’t seen to have informed well the decision making of George Bush and Stan O’Neal.

But what’s with all this cultural stereotype derision coming from a U.S. Senator who represents New York, one of the epicentres in the U.S. for expensive coffee and pricey organic lettuce? It used to be de rigueur for American politicians to eat the appropriate ethnic foods while campaigning out on the stump. Now it’s about proving what a regular down to earth guy or gal they can be by eating and drinking only the stuff that real salt of the earth type voters consume. We’ve had eight years of the President you can have a beer with. Now we have Clinton, the Senator with whom you can enjoy downing shots of Crown Royal whiskey. Personally I’m a regular coffee no sugar, doesn’t like lettuce and prefers Becks but will drink Budweiser if that’s all you’ve got kind of guy. I’d like to know as an Obama supporter where I fit in to the cultural landscape? I would normally expect to hear labels like “liberal elitist latte drinker” coming from the mouths of Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter; aimed at Hillary Clinton, not from the Senator herself.

And when did Clinton become a “Scoop” Henry Jackson style Democrat in contrast to leftist Obama? Is that because of the whopping 1 point difference HRC has over him in the American Conservative Union’s ranking of their 2007 Senate votes? That’s 8 and 7 for HRC and BHO respectively. McCain by the way is 80 (of course I mean his ACU rating not his age!).

My fellow Americans, some enlightenment please for this expat on the tectonic shift that must have just occurred in American politics while I wasn’t looking. It would be greatly appreciated.

Be careful what you wish for

It’s a mistake for Bush’s critics to continue to diminish him by highlighting his alleged intellectual deficiencies. GWB’s selection as the Republican nominee in 2000 was the result of a careful vetting by the Right that began almost immediately after the 1996 general election. To their delight he confirmed his endorsement of their entire social, economic and foreign policy agendum. Far from being a fiasco in his 7 years in office he has delivered most of what they wanted with spectacular success. Most notably, he has added a conservative academic and a corporate lawyer to the Supreme Court. Along with being one or two votes away from overturning Roe this Supreme Court is clearly now more hospitable to the wishes of corporate America than any since the 1890’s. There were two decisions on the same day in March this year that prove this point. One of these invalidated New York State’s law to require airlines to provide a certain level of service to passengers because the Court saw that as state interference in interstate commerce. They also ruled against an inmate in Texas who was appealing his death penalty sentence by lethal injection on the grounds that an international court had ordered the U.S. Federal government to review the death penalty cases of some foreign inmates in U.S. prisons. The majority ruled that the Federal government had no right to compel states to do this review. The clear message was that states rights are good when they benefit conservative social causes but are bad when they are a pain for business. Even Bush’s failure to rein in spending and the resultant mega deficit has a silver lining: it puts more fiscal pressure on programs that they hate such as social security and Medicare. Washington will be hard pressed to provide much relief if the economic downturn proves as severe as some including Warren Buffet fear. And in foreign affairs the belligerence of this government on the world stage is not a bad thing for them despite the Iraq debacle.

How different from GWB’s presidency would McCain’s be? McCain has been mindful of the difficulties that his maverick posture in 2000 caused to his political career. His rating from the American Conservative Union has steadily increased since then and as of 2007 it is 80. His enthusiasm for our involvement in Iraq is well known and he will not change the course of this war in any significant way. His “straight talk” approach to social spending is to tell displaced workers in manufacturing that their jobs will not be coming back and that his administration can not offer much in the way of assistance. This echoes Bill Kristol’s words back in 1992 to American’s who were being hurt by that recession. That advice was that they should look to “stoicism and prayer” as a means to get them through their tribulations. There is every indication that McCain will also continue to use Bush’s criteria in selecting Supreme Court nominees should there be more vacancies (there almost certainly will be considering the average age of the Justices).

How differently are Clinton’s and Obama’s platform in response to McCain’s? The answer is significantly if we use their ACU rating as a measure. It’s the opposite of McCain’s and Clinton and Obama are pretty much alike in that opposition. Except for some differences on health care approaches their platforms could not be more similar.

I seriously doubt that the Romney and Huckabee supporters who threatened during the early primary season to vote for a Democrat should McCain become the nominee will really do so if either Clinton or Obama is the nominee. Clinton supporters who promise to vote for McCain or just sit out the election if Obama is the nominee and Obama supporters who threaten to do the same in the face of a Clinton nomination need to seriously consider the real consequences of continuing Republican rule for at least another four years.

The Wahine Disaster

From the window of my flat in Oriental Bay I have a view of Wellington harbour and bay. The late summer weather has been one of exceptional sunshine and the last few weeks provided a respite from the winds that make this the windiest capital city anywhere. Or at least that’s the boast but it certainly sounds true. Two weeks ago, for a couple of days, the water had no chop at all and it must have been as low on the Beaufort scale as possible. Living here has made me more attentive to every change in the wind. Regardless if it’s a northerly or a southerly blow it’s always dramatic with the clouds moving across the sky as if in a fast forwarded film. This is our ten month in New Zealand and we are getting acclimated for the first time to seasons that are turned upside down for us northern hemispherians. My neighbour Michael was right back in November when he said I would love March.

But we are now into the first week of April and the weather has turned dramatically colder and rainy. It could be exactly like this back in New York where winter would still linger awhile and only the budding forsythia gave a hint that the good stuff of spring was to be soon in the offing. But here in the southern latitudes it means the beginning of winter and a return to the weather of the “roaring forties”.

It was forty years ago that New Zealand experienced a mammoth storm that was the worst in recorded history and which caused the sinking of the inter-island ferry, the Wahine. On the morning of April 10, 1968 the Wahine entered the harbour of Wellington after leaving from Lyttelton in the South Island the previous day. During the previous night two storms merged over Wellington and by the morning there were winds with gusts in excess of 150 kilometres per hour. Wellington harbour was a raging sea that threatened to drive the ship onto the rocks of a nearby reef. The captain attempted to reverse course back to the Cook Straits for safety. The ship by this time was almost uncontrollable in the troughs of the massive waves and with her radar damaged and with zero visibility they were unable to steer her out of harms way. The ship was driven fast aground onto the reef. The crew was able to free the ship but it was now taking on water and adrift in the harbour. By late morning the Wahine was seriously listing and with the rough sea making rescue from the shore impossible the Captain gave the orders to abandon ship. The ship’s list made it difficult to ready the life boats and only four were successfully launched. Most passengers were forced into the water and attempted to swim to shore. Many of the 52 who died that day were killed after being hurtled against the rocky beach. Most of the other deaths were from drowning or exposure. It was not the worst loss of life for a New Zealand maritime disaster but that it happened so close to Wellington and that the city residents were unable to come to the direct aid of the stricken passengers has helped make the memory of the Wahine disaster one that Kiwis do not want forgotten.

There’s a maritime museum close to Queens Wharf in Wellington that shows an excellent 20 minute long documentary film about the Wahine disaster. I visited that museum shortly after arriving here last year. Since then there have been days with weather of high winds and rain with a rough chop on the sea but nothing that would make being out on even a small boat an activity of great danger. While looking out on the harbour I try to picture that day forty years ago and I can only imagine how frightening it must have been to see that scene and to be so helpless in the face of nature in her full fury.

Summer's End

I’m writing this at the tail end of an almost perfect weather-wise four day weekend here in New Zealand that began with Good Friday, a public holiday and ended with Easter Monday today, also a public holiday. Good Friday is not a public holiday in the U.S. Most workers in the States who want to take it off would have to use one of their personal days. Most of the financial markets in the U.S., including the New York Exchange are closed on Good Friday and since I worked for a good number of companies on the Street, I was able to frequently enjoy the three day weekend. Christmas is the only religious holiday that is also a U.S. public holiday. Why does Wall St. observe Good Friday? Wall St. lore has is that the last time markets were open that day was in 1907 when there was a severe financial panic which had JP Morgan, in that pre-Federal Reserve Bank era, pledging his own wealth to stave off a complete meltdown of the credit markets. The only problem with this legend is that this panic started in October, long after Easter occurred that year. However I’m unable in my brief research of the subject to find a more plausible explanation. I knew about Boxing Day before I came here, the holiday that is the day after Christmas and celebrated in the U.K., New Zealand and Australia, but was pleasantly surprised to learn that there is an Easter equivalent. I guess it was created to help recover from over indulgence on Easter after consuming all of those chocolate rabbits. We don’t have four day weekends like this in the U.S. because of the Federal Reserve Bank. Their policy is that banks should not be closed for more than three consecutive days.

What I find to be odd about this extended Easter holiday is the sense I get, after nine months of living here, that Kiwi’s are no more particularly religious than Americans and lack the equivalent of a Bible Belt region of fervent devotion. It’s true that the 3^rd largest city in New Zealand is Christchurch and was founded by devout Anglicans from Britain in the 19^th century who had their own John Winthrop like shining city on a hill aspiration. So the long holiday probably has a real legacy from a time when no one questioned that New Zealand was a Christian nation and is still being observed because who wants to argue against a nice long weekend? Jackie Mason said he gave up on atheism when he discovered that they have no holidays. Kiwis also have the Queen’s birthday in June as a public holiday; this interestingly enough is not the case in the U.K.

When a radio announcer here said this morning that this was the last big holiday of summer I immediately was taken back to those Labor Days of youth when I accompanied my parents to a traditional end of summer Sunday dinner at my Aunt Florence’s apartment in Queens. Despite her loving hospitality and delicious feast it was always hard for me to shake off that feeling of longing and regret I felt at summer’s end. Today my seasonal clock was still in a northern hemisphere mode when you can begin to entertain fantasies of boogie boarding at the beach and backyard barbecues soon to come. Bryan and I decided to seize the day with what could be our last summer fling so we had a dip in the beach that's just across the street from our apartment here in Oriental Bay. Besides the almost cloudless sky it was also a most un-Wellington windless day and the bay was more like a tropical lagoon in its stillness and clarity. The moderate coldness of the water made it refreshing and we marveled at being able to spot through the clear water some very large starfish. The beginning of autumn was evident in the chilly air despite a strong sun and we didn’t linger on the sand for too long afterwards. Later I barbecued some shish kebabs in the small veranda at the back of our flat and thought about past summers spent by the sea on Long Island, Maine and the Jersey shore.

Happy Easter!

Lust in Action

Why? I have a hard time understanding it even though it’s been happening from time immemorial and recently with more frequency (until now mostly with Republicans). I’m talking about those rich and powerful individuals who truly have it all, wealth, fame with stellar career success but then self destruct in that most tried and true way: pitiful indiscretion. It was my intention on writing about the Eliot Spitzer debacle since he announced his resignation as Governor but David Brooks has written such a succinct and insightful, case closed and no further explanation needed article in today’s NY Times that I almost decided against it. Brooks’ premise is that these men (they are always men – have you ever heard of the Alpha woman?) might have some Asperger like disorder that while not negatively impacting on their drive to become successful or appear charismatic, makes it harder for them to learn the social skills that most people acquire without second thought and which are needed to bond with people in a genuine way and enjoy real intimacy. The resultant loneliness and isolation can result in an irrational and dark end. It sounds plausible to me and it’s a more thorough and thoughtful explanation than anything else I’ve read. But it does nothing to dissipate the cloud of exasperation and anger that so many of us feel. I mean there must be legions of proverbial lonely guys out there who are reading about his meteoric rise to fame while eating their microwaved Kraft macaroni and cheese and looking at the pictures of his most photogenic and lovely trophy wife and children while asking that question in their minds: Why?

My first reaction after the reading the Times expose about the young woman from the Emperor’s Club who commanded such a high fee was pretty much the same one I had when we all first learned about Monica Lewinsky. This is what you’ve jeopardized your personal and professional life for? Yes, she’s an attractive woman but for $10,000 I was expecting Aphrodite, Helen of Troy or maybe Rita Hayworth. Instead we have a young twenty something from the Jersey Shore and a broken home with a somewhat eclectic taste in music (according to her MySpace profile). As a friend of mine said to me during Monicagate, “At least JFK did it with Marilyn Monroe and Marlene Dietrich”.

F.Scott Fitzgerald wrote, “Give me a hero and I’ll write you a tragedy”. I’ve read a few opinion pieces about this story that explores the premise of Spitzer as a tragic figure in a Shakespearian sense but then quickly dismiss the idea as not being even worthy of such a comparison. The Shakespeare connection intrigues me only because I’ve recently moved to a new flat here in Wellington and as I don’t have a television, I’ve exhausted all the available reading I have on hand except for a hardcover Shakespeare collection that belonged to my brother while in college. I’ve been perusing the sonnets and thought that there’s one particular piece, more so than any of the tragic plays, that is more appropriate to this week’s headline news:

The expense of spirit in a waste of shame

Is lust in action; and till action, lust

Is perjured, murderous, bloody, full of blame,

Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust;

Enjoy'd no sooner but despised straight;

Past reason hunted; and no sooner had,

Past reason hated, as a swallowed bait,

On purpose laid to make the taker mad:

Mad in pursuit, and in possession so;

Had, having, and in quest to have, extreme;

A bliss in proof, and proved, a very woe;

Before, a joy proposed; behind, a dream.

All this the world well knows; yet none knows well

To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell.

Part II - How to succeed in business while failing

I haven't posted recently as we moved two weeks ago and it's only two days ago that I got broadband access in our new flat. We'll it's just in time to write about the hearings that Rep. Henry Waxman of California conducted this past Friday on the exorbitant severance packages of failed Wall Street CEO's Stan O'Neil and Charles Prince.

Dear Representative Waxman:

I want to thank you for chairing the Committee on Oversight and Investigations hearings on the issue of high compensation of failed CEO’s. As a former employee of Merrill Lynch I have been closely following the story since last year, of the huge financial losses of Wall Street firms due to their reliance on collateralized debt obligations. I was almost despairing that there would be so little follow up to Stan O’Neal’s and Charles Prince’s spectacular failure in that regard while receiving exorbitant golden parachutes until I read the news accounts of your committee’s hearings. I am glad that you have helped to keep this outrage in the news and to not let it fade it away. Even though these gentlemen may not have committed any illegal acts we have yet to see the full awful consequences that their irresponsibility and recklessness may cause to our economy. It is a very lame excuse for a professional manager to claim that they didn’t see this debacle coming. Risk is always a concern for financial service firms and properly managing and hedging against it is the most important part of an executive’s fiduciary duties. The disparaging comments by your Republican colleagues, Darrell E. Issa and Tom Davis on why these hearings had to be held has reminded me of why I voted a straight Democratic ticket in 2006 (I’m a registered Democrat in Alpine, NJ but I am currently working in Wellington, New Zealand) and why I was so exultant in November of that year on learning of the Democratic Congressional victories.

In 2003 I was downsized from Merrill Lynch, along with thousands of others by Mr. O’Neal as part of a cost cutting move to increase the value of the firm’s stock. As a six year employee I received the company’s standard severance package: three months compensation with health benefits plus one month for every year above five years on the job. How can it be justified that a man who is responsible for a six billion dollar loss, the largest in Merrill Lynch’s history, then receives a severance package worth 141 million dollars? Thank you for asking this question in a public forum and God bless you.