Throw Syria out of Lebanon!!

The ramifications of Hariri's assassination

The assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in a massive bombing in central Beirut on Monday sends a loud and deadly message - but the nature, origin, destination and intent of the message all remain painfully unclear to many observers. What is crystal clear, though, is that this crime will send out important political ripples in at least three dimensions.

The two most immediate dimensions are internal Lebanese politics and the Syrian-Lebanese relationship. The third dimension is the relationship between Syria and external powers - the U.S. and France most notably, the UN and the Europeans more broadly. The speed, clarity and intensity with which Lebanese opposition groups Monday blamed Syria and its allied Lebanese government for the killing spoke volumes about the troubled Syrian-Lebanese axis being the central political context in which this whole matter must be analyzed. That became obvious immediately after the bombing, as affirmed by the behavior of the three principal protagonists - the Syrian government, the Lebanese opposition and the United States government.

The events of Monday have unleashed political forces that could transform both Lebanon and, via the Syrian connection, other parts of the Middle East. The already intense backlash to the assassination may lead to an accelerated Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, and faster reform movements inside both Lebanon and Syria.

The fact that within just hours of the murder five distinct parties were singled out as possible culprits - Israel, Syria, Lebanese regime partisans, mafia-style gangs, and anti-Saudi, anti-U.S. Islamist terrorists - also points to the wider dilemma that disfigures Lebanese and Arab political culture in general: the resort to murderous and destabilizing violence as a chronic option for those who vie for power, whether as respectable government officials, established local warlords, or freelance political thugs.

The madness is not just in the murder of a fine man and a true Lebanese and Arab patriot; it is in the ongoing legacy of rampant and often brutal political violence that at once defines, disfigures and demeans political elites and perhaps even Arab society as a whole. That madness has now been even more deeply institutionalized and anchored in the modern history of this region due to the impact of the American-British invasion of Iraq and the new wave of violence it has spurred. One of the reasons why the Lebanese-Syrian relationship has become increasingly contentious in the past year is the consequence of American pressure on Syria to be more cooperative on Iraq. The circle of violence that engulfs the Middle East is as vast and intertwined as it is senselessly destructive.

But this murder was not primarily about our wider Arab dilemma. Regardless of who carried it out, the murder and its fallout have focused attention on a tortured Lebanese-Syrian relationship that is problematic in its own right, and that has become the crucible for testing new forms of American and Western political intervention in the Arab world.

It was not at all surprising that opposition forces in Lebanon quickly came together and openly pinned responsibility for the assassination on Syria and its allied Lebanese government. For the most significant political development in Lebanon in recent months, in my view, has been the Lebanese opposition's coalescing around an increasingly clear and sharp rejection of Syria's military presence in the country and its political interference in domestic Lebanese affairs. This position became more focused and vocal last autumn after the Syrian-backed extension of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud's term by an additional three years. American-French diplomatic pressure on Syria and the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1559 demanding Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon are all part of that same thrust.

This escalated almost instantly to a new level of intensity and importance in the hours after Hariri's death: The opposition not only blamed Syria, but also held the Lebanese government responsible and asked it not to participate in Hariri's funeral Tuesday. In Arab political culture, I cannot think of a more acerbic, angry and insulting gesture than asking the incumbent political leadership to stay away from the funeral of a leading statesman who almost single-handedly (working with the Syrians!) rebuilt Beirut and Lebanon. The Lebanese opposition has taken its battle with the Lebanese and Syrian governments to a new level, with unpredictable consequences.

As fascinating as the opposition's speedy accusations against Syria was Syria's equally swift rejection of the accusations. Damascus marshaled an unprecedented array of its officials who spoke to the mass media simultaneously on three continents, and who pointed the finger at Israel and others who are accused of wanting to destabilize Lebanon. Not losing a beat or a step, the U.S. State Department and White House weighed in at the same moment with their not-very-veiled linkage of Hariri's killing with the need for Lebanon to enjoy total sovereignty from Syrian influence and control.

Investigations may or may not identify and prosecute the killers of Hariri, as was the case in half a dozen other assassinations of Lebanese leaders in recent decades. Despite the quick accusations against Syria, the regime in Damascus, like all other accused parties, will get its moment in the court of public opinion, and in the deliberations of the UN Security Council, where the contested Syrian-Lebanese relationship is likely to be debated. The reality now is that Hariri's assassination, regardless of who did it, has vastly speeded up and intensified the efforts of Lebanese political forces that are demanding that Syria get its troops and political operatives out of Lebanon.

AND SHE GETS TO KEEP HER COMPUTER!!!
Read the last line!

Fiorina Exiting Hewlett-Packard With More Than $42 Million

Carleton S. Fiorina, the former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, will receive a severance package worth about $21.4 million, and stands to gain at least $21.1 million more.

The additional amount reflects the estimated value of her pension, stock options and Hewlett stock holdings, which the company did not include in her severance package.

Ms. Fiorina was forced to resign Tuesday after the board concluded that she failed to reverse Hewlett's sagging stock price and accelerate the company's turnaround after the merger with Compaq Computer.

She will receive $14 million in severance pay, according to terms of the agreement submitted yesterday in regulatory filings.

She will also receive a $7.38 million bonus for meeting certain performance goals in 2004 and the first quarter of this year, even though on Wednesday the board singled out Ms. Fiorina's failure to accelerate the company's strategy.

In addition, Hewlett agreed to pay her $50,000 for legal, financial and career counseling and will continue her health and personal security benefits for about a year.

Paul Hodgson, a senior compensation analyst at the Corporate Library, questioned the severance in light of her initial pay package. Ms. Fiorina received a $3 million signing bonus along with a restricted stock grant worth more than $65.5 million at the time to woo her away from Lucent Technologies, according to filings.

"And as she leaves," he said, "she gets $21 million, when in fact, stockholders have gotten negative returns."

More than $21.1 million in additional compensation was not reflected in the severance package.
Because the company's share price has fallen more than 50 percent since Ms. Fiorina took over in July 1999, most of her six million vested options have no current market value. Only a small portion of the 700,000 options granted in 2003 have value and are worth about $1 million, which was not reflected in the filings.

Ms. Fiorina also received restricted grants of about 826,000 shares during her tenure, that along with her other Hewlett holdings, now have a market value of $18.2 million.

In addition, Ms. Fiorina will receive a pension of at least $200,000 a year that was not included in the company's severance calculations. The pension could be worth at least $2 million, compensation specialists said. She will also keep her computer, receive technical support for three months, and have access to a secretary for six months.

Kazaa is Terrible, Not worth Downloading

Kazaa's a nuisance--so says Kazaa maker's staff

Employees at peer-to-peer provider Sharman Networks "hate" installing the company's own Kazaa software because it has ill effects on their computers, according to an internal document written by Sharman's chief technology officer.

The document, entitled "Kazaa Technology 2004" and written by Phil Morle, says that Sharman needs to be careful about installing too much adware on a computer upon the installation of Kazaa. The document is part of a bundle for which a request for confidentiality was rejected this week by Justice Murray Wilcox, the judge overseeing a copyright trial against Sharman in Australia.

The adware "slows down users' machines and can affect other activity such as browsing the Internet," Morle wrote. "We are also adding increasing p2p networks to the users' machines. These are good value to users but they use more resources and create confusion for users as to what resources they are sharing and where this can be controlled."
These two issues could be reasons why Kazaa manages to "lose users by over-stepping the mark," the document said, adding that the company should take into account how many employees at Sharman refuse to install the peer-to-peer software.

"Consider how many people that work for Sharman Networks and its partners that hate installing Kazaa on their machine," Morle wrote.

Record labels Universal Music Australia, EMI, Sony/BMG, Warner, Festival Mushroom and 25 additional applicants are suing Sharman and associated parties--including Brilliant Digital Entertainment, Altnet and Sharman CEO Nikki Hemming--over alleged music copyright infringement made through the Kazaa software.

The Australian record companies assert that Sharman misrepresented the situation when it claimed that "the performance of a personal computer will not be, or is unlikely to be, noticeably affected by its functioning as a supernode for the purposes of the Kazaa software."
Morle's document also stated the company's awareness of the legal risks involved with the technology.

"Our competitors are taking risks legally, but delivering compelling consumer solutions. We need confidence in what we do and must take similar leaps of faith. eDonkey is not yet being sued and is in a strong position to out-innovate us," Morle wrote.