According to reports by The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121598077288249131.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news&apl=y&r=766427), Belgian brewer InBev has bought St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch for $70 a share, totalling to a $52 billion deal. The deal was agreed upon today in New York by Carlos Brito and August Busch IV, CEOs of each company respectively.
The two brewers do not overlap in each other's respective markets much, with InBev dominating Europe and South America and A-B being the largest American brewer. This may be good news for A-B, as there will not be much that InBev can cut, thus saving more jobs than a typical merger would. However, Brito is a cost-cutter. According to the St. Louis Post Dispatch (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/story/13794110FEFAF8B886257484001A5CB7?OpenDocument), when AmBev and Interbrew merged to become InBev, Brito swept into Toronto, shut Labatt Blue's Toronto brewery, fired 20% of its workforce, and the bottom line doubled in the next five years at Labatt, while Brito was promoted from CEO of North American operations to CEO of the whole company. Brito has promised to keep all twelve of A-B's plants open, but who knows for how long, especially if he wants to raise profits in a sluggish American beer economy?
Brito has promised that the new company's North American headquarters would be in St. Louis. While this may sound like good news, especially with InBev's brands coming out of this city and A-B's brands staying here, one has to take this with a grain of salt. Of course Brito would say this to try to bring A-B's stockholders and board of directors to his side. Maybe he means it, but again, for how long? If Anheuser-Busch-InBev's North American headquarters remains in St. Louis for only a month, no matter how sleazy Brito would look, at least he kept his promise, right?
The new deal includes two seats for A-B's board members on the new company's board. This may seem like InBev really wants a combined company, but look at two versus the twelve InBev already has, including four each from Interbrew and AmBev's founders. Hey, at least the new name puts Anheuser-Busch before InBev.
There is also the matter of corporate contributions. InBev apparently does not make any, while A-B makes a lot, especially here in the St. Louis community. Take a look at the Washington University in St. Louis campus, and you will find three buildings named after Busch, one of which houses the law school and is named after the Anheuser-Busch Foundation rather than the company itself. A-B is practically royalty in St. Louis, with its association with baseball, its ownership of Grant's Farm, its world-famous Clydesdales making frequent appearances, and its mention of St. Louis in all of its commercials. How will all those that have been touched by A-B's generosity fare after InBev fully takes over?
While Brito all the while has said that he favored a friendly combination of companies, his company still filed in a Delaware court a motion to let A-B stockholders fire all of A-B's board and replace them with successors handpicked by InBev. A-B filed a countersuit saying that InBev was misleading A-B shareholers, especially with its operations in Cuba, thus ensuring that not all of North America's orders can come from St. Louis, with the trade embargo between the United States and Cuba. Brito said that he had to cover all his bases and that business is business, so when the takeover is complete, that will still be his mantra, no?
On the flip side, Anheuser-Busch put up a pretty weak fight if they really did not want to sell. Their stock price had been languishing around $50 in the past few years already in a weak U.S. economy, and when InBev submitted its deal, they took too long to make a decision and their plan to cut costs and generate revenue was received lukewarmly by stockholers, especially as Busch was evasive in providing specifics on many questions he was asked. A-B also put in a half-hearted effort to buy the other 50% of Mexican brewer Grupo Modelo it does not already own and failed, though thankfully it fell through as this would have made A-B look like a hypocrite. InBev also said that they wanted to buy A-B as it is right now, including their packaging and entertainment divisions. Keeping their packaging division is understandable; this way, A-B does not have to contract with outsiders. However, divesting themselves of their entertainment division would have cut more costs, especially since the theme parks have nothing to do with beer, and with travel down due to high gas prices, less visitors would be going to the parks in the near future. Yet, A-B thought they should keep them because it would help in the long run. Go figure.
It's ironic this deal went down, as well, as A-B has criticized Miller for not being an American company after their sell to South African-based SAB, which is now headquartered in London. So what does A-B go out and do? Maybe Brito can be convinced to move the entire headquarters to St. Louis. He is a Brazilian living in Belgium anyway. What connections does he have there? That would definitely turn around St. Louis's feelings about the whole deal, as it would make St. Louis be a headquarters to an even more global brand than A-B was. However, the way St. Louis is screwed over constantly, this is a long shot.
Let's hope Brito is a decent enough man to keep his word and not pull the wool over A-B's and St. Louis's eyes. St. Louis has just lost its Macy's regional division to Atlanta after three years here, and has been losing other companies left and right in the past few years, including A.G. Edwards, May Company, TWA, McDonnell Douglas, Southwestern Bell, Ralston Purina, and others. Shareholders will receive their $70-a-share buyouts and make money, and A-B executives are rich enough already and will land on their feet. But will A-B's employees, the St. Louis community, and the St. Louis and American economies be able to as well? I, for one, am scared to find out.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Happy Birthday, Blog
Albeit eight days late, though my first real post happened a year ago yesterday, and I haven't gone to bed yet, so let's just call it a birthday, shall we?
I started this blog to keep up my writing. I've always been interested in journalism, whether print or media. In primary and elementary school, my dad would have stacks of newspapers everywhere, and every night at 5:30 he'd turn on NewsChannel 5 to watch NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw. My obsession with newspapers and current events most definitely stemmed from there. Eventually, I got in the habit of keeping up with the news myself, even starting out by bringing the Sports and Everyday sections to school with me to read after hours. I remember, I think it was fourth grade, a group of parents standing around my table commenting on how studious I looked. I didn't know why at the time, especially since I enjoyed reading the newspaper.
This obsession continued into middle and high school, where instead of going to the field house to roughhouse with my classmates and play basketball after lunch, I always went to the library to read the day's news, especially sports (which if you haven't figured out by now, is my passion, and basically how I started following current events, except for the one time I made my parents record a 1992 Presidential Debate. I think the tape is around somewhere). I spent so much time in the library, all the librarians knew me quite well, and I ended up prefecting for them senior year.
And of course, that eventually led to writing for the school newspaper in high school for 3+ years. There have been some articles that I was really proud of and somehow got the school buzzing, others not so much but still got the school buzzing. It's funny, really, because I never really liked writing English papers. I was always too mechanical in my methods, making sure everything fit perfectly into the template I was given in seventh grade, and taking every teacher's remark literally and incorporating it into all of my future papers. But with a newspaper article or an opinions piece, everything just flowed from my mind onto the computer screen. It was an almost seamless transition. So long as I had a story and facts to back it up, maybe some quotations, and an opinion of course with opinions pieces, it worked out well.
Three things that didn't happen that I wish had had: got a story on the front page (though I got the spread a couple times, I believe), been able to dedicate more time to layout, and thus snare an editor-in-chief position, one of which I lost out to someone who had started with the paper a year after me. However, I somehow got honored by the state newspaper competition that our newspaper sends a few issues to each year for having one of my articles stand out, ironically the only one that year I did not write about an issue surrounding the school. Neither editor-in-chief could say that, though they did represent the newspaper with the top newspaper award. (Shameless plug: http://www.jburroughs.org/theworld/index.html)
I always got great feedback from my classmates and other students, teachers, my fellow aspiring journalists and editors-in-chief, and most importantly, the faculty advisor for the newspaper, whom I ran into a month ago while visitng the school, and who told me the reason he always asks if I'm still writing is because I showed promise in high school, had an opinion or something to write about, and got it in, and of course, wrote well (his paraphrased words, not mine).
I've been interested in continuing through college, but:
1. Student Life is not a quality newspaper that I don't really want to be associated with, even if my writing could use a lot of improvement, and even if I've been told I should join so I could change everything, which leads me to...
2. Not much time to write or be involved. The task gets more serious the higher you climb the ladder, having to spend more time doing research, hunting down sources, getting information and quotations, attending more events, double- and triple-checking your work to make sure it's top quality. Heck, I rarely have time to write on this blog.
3. However bad StudLife is (horrible writing, lack of priorities, mediocre layout, too much fluff, among other things), I'm not going to do something if all I can do is mail it in.
4. I've thought about starting my own paper, but that would take up even more time than I have already, and I only have one more year to do so if I did try.
And thus this blog started, so I could keep writing on my own time about anything I want. Readership has been pretty much zero, though writing is more of a pasttime for me than to gain popularity. Someday, maybe, a career on the side in journalism would be nice, possibly a correspondent or expert in either print or media, and before that possibly joining the graduate school newspaper if there is one. But until then, this will have to suffice, and I seriously hope to be able to keep this going consistently. Y'all'd better keep me on it as well.
Ideas that have been in my head for a while:
- A-B/InBev-done
- Airlines, including mergers, flight cuts, financial woes
- Midwest floods
- Obama/McCain and/or Obama/Clinton
- Baseball, including possibly All-Star Game, Tampa Bay, NL Central-done (see ArmchairGM page)
- Princeton Review and studying-done
- Gordon Ramsay
- Whole Foods
- Time management-done
- Life changes-done
This would be perfect for a 5 points, I guess, though I was never too pleased with the quality of those pieces. Or, I could give each topic its own article, but that may lead some things to be really old news. Let me know about what you think as well, the 0.376 people out there who are reading this.
Anyway, it's been long enough. I'll be back soon, hopefully this weekend. And give me some feedback. I need to improve.
I started this blog to keep up my writing. I've always been interested in journalism, whether print or media. In primary and elementary school, my dad would have stacks of newspapers everywhere, and every night at 5:30 he'd turn on NewsChannel 5 to watch NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw. My obsession with newspapers and current events most definitely stemmed from there. Eventually, I got in the habit of keeping up with the news myself, even starting out by bringing the Sports and Everyday sections to school with me to read after hours. I remember, I think it was fourth grade, a group of parents standing around my table commenting on how studious I looked. I didn't know why at the time, especially since I enjoyed reading the newspaper.
This obsession continued into middle and high school, where instead of going to the field house to roughhouse with my classmates and play basketball after lunch, I always went to the library to read the day's news, especially sports (which if you haven't figured out by now, is my passion, and basically how I started following current events, except for the one time I made my parents record a 1992 Presidential Debate. I think the tape is around somewhere). I spent so much time in the library, all the librarians knew me quite well, and I ended up prefecting for them senior year.
And of course, that eventually led to writing for the school newspaper in high school for 3+ years. There have been some articles that I was really proud of and somehow got the school buzzing, others not so much but still got the school buzzing. It's funny, really, because I never really liked writing English papers. I was always too mechanical in my methods, making sure everything fit perfectly into the template I was given in seventh grade, and taking every teacher's remark literally and incorporating it into all of my future papers. But with a newspaper article or an opinions piece, everything just flowed from my mind onto the computer screen. It was an almost seamless transition. So long as I had a story and facts to back it up, maybe some quotations, and an opinion of course with opinions pieces, it worked out well.
Three things that didn't happen that I wish had had: got a story on the front page (though I got the spread a couple times, I believe), been able to dedicate more time to layout, and thus snare an editor-in-chief position, one of which I lost out to someone who had started with the paper a year after me. However, I somehow got honored by the state newspaper competition that our newspaper sends a few issues to each year for having one of my articles stand out, ironically the only one that year I did not write about an issue surrounding the school. Neither editor-in-chief could say that, though they did represent the newspaper with the top newspaper award. (Shameless plug: http://www.jburroughs.org/theworld/index.html)
I always got great feedback from my classmates and other students, teachers, my fellow aspiring journalists and editors-in-chief, and most importantly, the faculty advisor for the newspaper, whom I ran into a month ago while visitng the school, and who told me the reason he always asks if I'm still writing is because I showed promise in high school, had an opinion or something to write about, and got it in, and of course, wrote well (his paraphrased words, not mine).
I've been interested in continuing through college, but:
1. Student Life is not a quality newspaper that I don't really want to be associated with, even if my writing could use a lot of improvement, and even if I've been told I should join so I could change everything, which leads me to...
2. Not much time to write or be involved. The task gets more serious the higher you climb the ladder, having to spend more time doing research, hunting down sources, getting information and quotations, attending more events, double- and triple-checking your work to make sure it's top quality. Heck, I rarely have time to write on this blog.
3. However bad StudLife is (horrible writing, lack of priorities, mediocre layout, too much fluff, among other things), I'm not going to do something if all I can do is mail it in.
4. I've thought about starting my own paper, but that would take up even more time than I have already, and I only have one more year to do so if I did try.
And thus this blog started, so I could keep writing on my own time about anything I want. Readership has been pretty much zero, though writing is more of a pasttime for me than to gain popularity. Someday, maybe, a career on the side in journalism would be nice, possibly a correspondent or expert in either print or media, and before that possibly joining the graduate school newspaper if there is one. But until then, this will have to suffice, and I seriously hope to be able to keep this going consistently. Y'all'd better keep me on it as well.
Ideas that have been in my head for a while:
- A-B/InBev-done
- Airlines, including mergers, flight cuts, financial woes
- Midwest floods
- Obama/McCain and/or Obama/Clinton
- Baseball, including possibly All-Star Game, Tampa Bay, NL Central-done (see ArmchairGM page)
- Princeton Review and studying-done
- Gordon Ramsay
- Whole Foods
- Time management-done
- Life changes-done
This would be perfect for a 5 points, I guess, though I was never too pleased with the quality of those pieces. Or, I could give each topic its own article, but that may lead some things to be really old news. Let me know about what you think as well, the 0.376 people out there who are reading this.
Anyway, it's been long enough. I'll be back soon, hopefully this weekend. And give me some feedback. I need to improve.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
The Republican Party in Disarray
Things can change really fast, huh?
Only two years ago, Democrats were scrambling to try to take back Congress. Since the days of Bill Clinton and Al Gore's close call, the Democrats had nobody to rally around and to guide them. Sure, they had a lot of big names, with Hillary, Kerry, Lieberman, and others, but nobody to step up and take the reins. September 11th, the WMDs in Iraq hoax, and the then-staunch unity of the Republican Party around a confident, if not well-informed President George W. Bush, not to mention his re-election when there was still hope for Iraq, made this a Republican nation for the past eight years.
And then, only a little over a year ago, with Bush's approval ratings dropping what with the War in Iraq turning the wrong way, the economy starting to slide, the inability to capture Osama bin Laden, the mess-up with Hurricane Katrina, the Jack Abramoff scandal, Tom DeLay, the Mark Foley congressional page scandal, and the general inability to make sound decisions or intelligent statements throughout his staff, led to the Democrats finally taking back the House of Representatives for the first time since 1994, and the Senate for the first time since 2004. The seats in the House literally flipped, going from 232 Republican seats to the Democrats' 202 with one independent to 233 Democratic seats and 202 Republican onces. The Senate was more of a close call, with big battles in Montana and Virginia going the Democrats' way (what with name-calling and poor decision-making by Republican senators Conrad Burns and George Allen, respectively) giving them a slight edge with the two independents caucusing with the Democrats.
What is really funny, though, is that the Democrats had to recruit more conservative candidates whose views did not necessarily follow party ideologies but were Democrats in name only to run for office in their respective areas. For example, Representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina opposes abortion and gun control, two of the bigger social issues facing America today. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia worked for the Reagan administration and endorsed future opponent George Allen in the 2000 election (though he did endorse Democrat Chuck Robb in 1994), but ran as a Democrat and won. Also, the Democrats did not have big names in this election, or even previously (which led to then unknown candidate Barack Obama becoming a rock star in 2004), that could help win a few seats, leading to other unknowns Webb and Jon Tester of Montana (due to coverage of the hotly contested seats), and even Harold Ford of Tennessee, who ran a strong campaign but barely lost, gaining attention. Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Rahm Emanuel, and others, who organized the Democratic cause, also got their fifteen minutes of fame as well, especially with Pelosi becoming the first female Speaker of the House.
Also funny is that strong candidates who were poised to win back their seats, aside from Burns and Allen, lost because of the distaste with Republican decisions. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, despite controversial remarks, was a star in the Republican Party, and lost to Bob Casey, Jr. Sherrod Brown beat Mike DeWine in another closely monitored contest in Ohio. Even Jim Talent of conservative Missouri, who did not do anything wrong, lost to Claire McCaskill just because he was Republican and thus associated with the President and the party's failings.
Now, the Democrats are in control of both houses, and have bigger star power and more electable candidates in the upcoming presidential elections with Obama, Hillary, and John Edwards. The Republicans have the lame duck President who despite obvious discontent from the American people, is still stuck in his own world, and the Republican nominees may not have enough change available that Americans want. Senator John McCain is the most independent of the bunch, but may not survive the primaries due to this independence. Rudy Giuliani, the biggest Republican name, has not done anything to win the primaries yet, and his strategy of counting on the big states of Florida, New York, Texas, California, Illinois, and others may be too daunting. Otherwise, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee will not provide enough change from the eyes of the American people, and Ron Paul is a Republican Dennis Kucinich who has good ideas but not enough power to win.
It's only been two years since the Republican Party was in control and everybody was saying that it would take a near-miracle for the Democrats to win back Congress. Now, the views are completely the opposite. Funny, huh?
Only two years ago, Democrats were scrambling to try to take back Congress. Since the days of Bill Clinton and Al Gore's close call, the Democrats had nobody to rally around and to guide them. Sure, they had a lot of big names, with Hillary, Kerry, Lieberman, and others, but nobody to step up and take the reins. September 11th, the WMDs in Iraq hoax, and the then-staunch unity of the Republican Party around a confident, if not well-informed President George W. Bush, not to mention his re-election when there was still hope for Iraq, made this a Republican nation for the past eight years.
And then, only a little over a year ago, with Bush's approval ratings dropping what with the War in Iraq turning the wrong way, the economy starting to slide, the inability to capture Osama bin Laden, the mess-up with Hurricane Katrina, the Jack Abramoff scandal, Tom DeLay, the Mark Foley congressional page scandal, and the general inability to make sound decisions or intelligent statements throughout his staff, led to the Democrats finally taking back the House of Representatives for the first time since 1994, and the Senate for the first time since 2004. The seats in the House literally flipped, going from 232 Republican seats to the Democrats' 202 with one independent to 233 Democratic seats and 202 Republican onces. The Senate was more of a close call, with big battles in Montana and Virginia going the Democrats' way (what with name-calling and poor decision-making by Republican senators Conrad Burns and George Allen, respectively) giving them a slight edge with the two independents caucusing with the Democrats.
What is really funny, though, is that the Democrats had to recruit more conservative candidates whose views did not necessarily follow party ideologies but were Democrats in name only to run for office in their respective areas. For example, Representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina opposes abortion and gun control, two of the bigger social issues facing America today. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia worked for the Reagan administration and endorsed future opponent George Allen in the 2000 election (though he did endorse Democrat Chuck Robb in 1994), but ran as a Democrat and won. Also, the Democrats did not have big names in this election, or even previously (which led to then unknown candidate Barack Obama becoming a rock star in 2004), that could help win a few seats, leading to other unknowns Webb and Jon Tester of Montana (due to coverage of the hotly contested seats), and even Harold Ford of Tennessee, who ran a strong campaign but barely lost, gaining attention. Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Rahm Emanuel, and others, who organized the Democratic cause, also got their fifteen minutes of fame as well, especially with Pelosi becoming the first female Speaker of the House.
Also funny is that strong candidates who were poised to win back their seats, aside from Burns and Allen, lost because of the distaste with Republican decisions. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, despite controversial remarks, was a star in the Republican Party, and lost to Bob Casey, Jr. Sherrod Brown beat Mike DeWine in another closely monitored contest in Ohio. Even Jim Talent of conservative Missouri, who did not do anything wrong, lost to Claire McCaskill just because he was Republican and thus associated with the President and the party's failings.
Now, the Democrats are in control of both houses, and have bigger star power and more electable candidates in the upcoming presidential elections with Obama, Hillary, and John Edwards. The Republicans have the lame duck President who despite obvious discontent from the American people, is still stuck in his own world, and the Republican nominees may not have enough change available that Americans want. Senator John McCain is the most independent of the bunch, but may not survive the primaries due to this independence. Rudy Giuliani, the biggest Republican name, has not done anything to win the primaries yet, and his strategy of counting on the big states of Florida, New York, Texas, California, Illinois, and others may be too daunting. Otherwise, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee will not provide enough change from the eyes of the American people, and Ron Paul is a Republican Dennis Kucinich who has good ideas but not enough power to win.
It's only been two years since the Republican Party was in control and everybody was saying that it would take a near-miracle for the Democrats to win back Congress. Now, the views are completely the opposite. Funny, huh?
Monday, January 14, 2008
Nobody Returns Bush's Loyalty
I've wanted to comment about this for a while, but I've never gotten around to it until now. What triggered this were the resignations of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, press secretary Tony Snow and adviser Karl Rove last year from President Bush's staff. This got me to thinking how many people have left Bush's staff in the past few years, as it seems like much more than usual.
In the seven plus years since Bush has been in office, he has had fifty-three people as part of his Cabinet. Of the twenty-five departments, only three have had one person leading it throughout Bush's term in office. Compared to the last two two-term presidents, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, the total number of people who have been part of the Cabinet is greater by almost twenty. That's quite a lot. That doesn't even include those who are part of his staff but are not Cabinet members, such as the aforementioned Snow and Rove, and even Harriet Miers whom Bush infamously chose as a Supreme Court justice and defended her despite her obvious shortcomings.
President Bush has been staunchly loyal to his employees, sometimes almost to a fault. Ranging from John Ashcroft to Donald Rumsfeld to Gonzales, all have made mistakes that the media and the public have questioned their integrity and called for their resignation. While this loyalty may be a Bush virtue, sometimes it is blindly doglike, with Bush overlooking almost every criticism just so he can look like he did not make a bad choice. In the end, these three, as well as others, ended up turning in their resignations under heavy pressure, and Bush continues to praise them for their overall body of work while again overlooking their pitfalls. What a way to treat such a loyal man.
Of course, many have not left due to the consequences of their mistakes. Snow, for example, was ill and wanted to spend more time with his family. Rove thought Bush did not need him anymore and wanted to move on to other things (such as the 2008 election, where he could help save the Republican party). Others may have seen what this administration was doing to the country and the world and just wanted to leave before their names were attached to this infamy. Quite smart of them.
But this turnover of staff has to raise an alarm about how Bush is running things in Washington. It could be any of the reasons above, or something else not yet mentioned such as mismanagement, situation discontent, or any other personal reason. Whatever the explanation for this, something fishy is going on at the White House, and the 2008 election has come not a moment too soon.
In the seven plus years since Bush has been in office, he has had fifty-three people as part of his Cabinet. Of the twenty-five departments, only three have had one person leading it throughout Bush's term in office. Compared to the last two two-term presidents, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, the total number of people who have been part of the Cabinet is greater by almost twenty. That's quite a lot. That doesn't even include those who are part of his staff but are not Cabinet members, such as the aforementioned Snow and Rove, and even Harriet Miers whom Bush infamously chose as a Supreme Court justice and defended her despite her obvious shortcomings.
President Bush has been staunchly loyal to his employees, sometimes almost to a fault. Ranging from John Ashcroft to Donald Rumsfeld to Gonzales, all have made mistakes that the media and the public have questioned their integrity and called for their resignation. While this loyalty may be a Bush virtue, sometimes it is blindly doglike, with Bush overlooking almost every criticism just so he can look like he did not make a bad choice. In the end, these three, as well as others, ended up turning in their resignations under heavy pressure, and Bush continues to praise them for their overall body of work while again overlooking their pitfalls. What a way to treat such a loyal man.
Of course, many have not left due to the consequences of their mistakes. Snow, for example, was ill and wanted to spend more time with his family. Rove thought Bush did not need him anymore and wanted to move on to other things (such as the 2008 election, where he could help save the Republican party). Others may have seen what this administration was doing to the country and the world and just wanted to leave before their names were attached to this infamy. Quite smart of them.
But this turnover of staff has to raise an alarm about how Bush is running things in Washington. It could be any of the reasons above, or something else not yet mentioned such as mismanagement, situation discontent, or any other personal reason. Whatever the explanation for this, something fishy is going on at the White House, and the 2008 election has come not a moment too soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)