WSJ front pages Iran divestment, Josh Mandel & Husted deal

Find the Wall Street Journal abstract here (remainder for subscribers only though try this link – I got to it through a Google News search and it’s got a sketch of Rep. Mandel) and the full WSJ article here, on the Royal Dutch Shell website (which is not the company’s official site).

The article, dated 6/14/07, states that, “Rep. Mandel says he hasn’t decided whether to support the compromise [brokered by Husted, for voluntary divestment] or push for a full vote of his bill.”

Interesting that in the lengthy story, there’s no mention of how Mandel and Jones owned stock in a company from which they want the pensions to divest but failed to do so themselves, although Mandel eventually sold his shares (on May 29, according to the Cleveland Jewish News). Otherwise, the WSJ did a decent job of recapping and not slanting too much.

7 thoughts on “WSJ front pages Iran divestment, Josh Mandel & Husted deal

  1. I’m profoundly disappointed that the Cincinnati Enquirer hasn’t written a word about the whole divestiture debate. They had ONE little article tucked away where it could’ve easily been overlooked, but it was definitely like they were portraying Mandel as saving the world from the godless, evil retired teachers who KNOWINGLY invested in the Evil Empire. Not a word was said about Mandel and Jones owning one of those boycotted stocks! Ever. That newspaper has no credibility with me. I’ll read all kinds of things on the ‘net, things that one would expect to find in the paper, but those stories are never covered. It’s amazing. And shameful. We no longer have a truly unbiased media. If you want to find out what’s REALLY going on in the world and you live in the greater Cincinnati area, you’d better not count on the Enquirer!!! Just my opinion.

  2. Jill,Thanks for covering this. I followed your blog throughout because I thought you were giving a balanced and informed perspective on the issue, although I was pretty sure that your position and mine were different. You blew my socks off when you came out against the bill, because I had guessed that you’d be for it.I sort of don’t have a dog in this fight, because I don’t work for the state or one of the big employers that could be affected by the bill. I do live in the economy of Ohio, and we certainly don’t need to be discouraging investments in the state.I do have relatives who do work for the State, and are counting on their PERS pensions. I’m amazed how under the radar this whole issue has been. You would think people would be screaming at having their pensions endangered by politicizing the investments this way.

  3. Thanks, Anon. Yes – re-reading and remembering the names entwined in his life, I would have to say that Rochefoucold is not someone, especially when it comes to politics, with whom I’d really want to align. But I can see how some, ahem, might be just fine with the analogy.

  4. Mark, I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it just the same. I do appreciate you commenting though.What’s the name of the “wise man”? 😉

  5. Hypocrisy arguements at most diminish the person, but never the policy.They are basically a personal attack.A wise man once said the charge of hypocrisy is the compliment that vice pays to virtueMark McNally,markmcnally@hotmail.com

Comment here

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s