Posted: November 3rd, 2010 | Author: Maha Rafi Atal | Filed under: Culture, Data, Politics | Tags: Forbes, Gender, mama grizzlies, midterms | 15 Comments »
I’ve got a post about GOP women up at Forbes right now: basically, I took a look at how GOP candidates fared with women voters. And interestingly, in this so-called year of the GOP woman, it was GOP men who got the women’s vote, while GOP women were successful with a more traditional Republican base of white men. I’m not sure why that is, but I’m inviting theories from you, so please, go read the data and comment.
Posted: October 27th, 2010 | Author: Maha Rafi Atal | Filed under: Culture, Politics | Tags: Feminism, Forbes, Gender, Mama Grizzly, Republican, Sarah Palin | No Comments »
Over at ForbesWoman, I’ve got a piece on the ‘Mama Grizzlies,’ meaning the Sarah Palin-endorsed GOP women running for office this fall. The piece asks: are they feminists? and if not, how should we think of them?
Yet while these candidates may have a catchy new name, the Mama Grizzly moniker and campaign is, at the surface, built around the most traditional of female roles: mother.
I go into some of the history of this phenomenon, of the patriotic mother being invoked in politics for a confusing mix of progressive and regressive goals. And I try to suss out where the Grizzlies fall. Conclusion:
the Grizzlies are more appropriately thought of as “feminine conservatives” than “conservative feminists.”
Readers of this blog know that the problem of anti-feminist, post-feminist or false feminist women is a major bugaboo of mine, so while I don’t write on politics frequently, this piece was interesting to report, even if some of what I learned was frustrating.
Go read it. And remember to vote.
Posted: September 24th, 2010 | Author: Maha Rafi Atal | Filed under: Economics, Foreign Policy, Politics | Tags: African Union, aid, Andris Piebalgs, climate change, Commodities, development, ECOWAS, energy, European Commission, European Union, Forbes, G20, inflation, Millennium Development Goals, United Nations | No Comments »
My post at Foreign Exchange today is an interview with Andris Piebalgs, the European Commissioner for Development. An excerpt:
“Some of your member states have expressed support for a financial transactions tax as a source of funding. What is the Commission’s view of that?
It’s very clear that official aid will need money beyond .7, and then on top of that aid we will need to raise funds for a climate change pledge. We need to start thinking as though at the end of the day somebody will count the money and if you haven’t delivered, you will be responsible for the misery in the world.
Yes, the tax is logical. Why? We tax everything else. All activities are suffering from taxation. Technically, though, it should be difficult to administer. It needs global governance, and in that, it is a test case for the G20. If they can’t do this, it is on them to propose an alternative. We could tax air tickets, say. Much simpler, but much less popular.”
I really enjoyed the whole chat, and encourage you to go read it.
Posted: August 24th, 2010 | Author: Maha Rafi Atal | Filed under: Apocalypse Series, Business, Journalism | Tags: Bill Baldwin, Forbes, Lewis Dvorkin | 11 Comments »
As you probably know by now, Forbes has bought and decided to shutter blogging portal True/Slant, and to bring its erstwhile chief Lew Dvorkin in as its new chief. What you may not know is that Dvorkin–whom I wrote about last year–was an ex-Forbesian, who left the magazine for a start-up, and then for AOL, specifically because he wanted to get deep into the web and digital marketing, and left AOL, he told me, because it didn’t have “the DNA for content-creation.” At thetime, he was trying to explain True/Slant to me as pure content informed by branding savvy, but the combination will be just as relevant at Forbes. Former co-workers there tell me the change is all about helping Forbes play digital catch-up, and the test is maintaining its reporting DNA in the process. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted: April 29th, 2010 | Author: Maha Rafi Atal | Filed under: Business, Foreign Policy, Politics, South Asia | Tags: Antofagasta, Balochistan, Barrick, China, Commodities, Forbes, Geostrategy, Pakistan | No Comments »
My latest story is up, on Chinese investment in Balochistan, a Pakistani province that borders Afghanistan, Iran and the Persian Gulf. As others have reported, China is building up investments in Central and South Asia in a strategy it calls the “string of pearls,” in a way that contains/constrains India. My piece looks at how China goes about staking its claim and what the strategy, as applied in Pakistan, means for the United States.
“Beijing is willing to play hardball to protect its position in Balochistan. That’s a lesson learned the hard way for Tethyan Copper, a joint venture between Canada’s Barrick Gold ( ABX– news – people ) and Chile’s Antofagasta. In 2006 Tethyan signed a deal to survey, and then develop, the Reko Diq reserve in Balochistan, estimated to hold $70 billion in copper and gold…
In January the Baloch government, struggling politically and looking to appease separatist hardliners, announced it would cancel Tethyan’s license and force investors to absorb a $3 billion loss. Almost immediately the U.S. intervened, putting pressure on the Pakistani central government to dissuade Quetta from doing this. U.S. diplomats believe the sanctity of the Tethyan deal is essential to its efforts to encourage Western investment in Pakistan as a counterterror tool.
For China, however, American intervention was an alarm bell…”
To find out what happened next, read the rest (and comment!)
here.
Posted: January 17th, 2010 | Author: Maha Rafi Atal | Filed under: Business, Economics, Politics, South Asia | Tags: antitrust, Commodities, Forbes, Pakistan, regulation, sugar | No Comments »
I’ve got a piece in this week’s edition of Forbes on the real crisis in Pakistan—the systemic failures of government, particularly on economic issues. My case study is the mismanagement of the nation’s sugar supply:
The sugar crisis has its roots in the fragmentation of Pakistan’s sugar sector. Growers, millers, wholesale distributors and retailers each have their own regulatory overlords offering protectionist perks and their own cartels to defend such gains. Though this structure goes back to the 1950s, recent policy decisions and the worldwide spike in prices of commodities like sugar have aggravated its effects.
…Economic problems provide rallying cries for opponents like Sharif and radical insurgents eager to bring down the government, while a weak and dysfunctional state contributes to economic distress. In the case of sugar, whose consumption in Pakistan is approaching developed-country levels, the danger is acute: In 1969 a sugar shortage helped bring down the rule of military dictator Ayub Khan.
Read the piece in full (and comment!) here.
Posted: June 12th, 2009 | Author: Maha Rafi Atal | Filed under: Journalism, Technology | Tags: BusinessWeek, Facebook, Forbes, Fortune, social media, Twitter | 2 Comments »
My first story as a Fortune reporter is up, and predictably, it’s about social networks. In particular it’s about Facebook’s new offer to give users custom urls/usernames the way other networks do. I wrote a little about social media during my time at Forbes, but not nearly as much as I did at BusinessWeek or as an undergraduate newspaper columnist, so this is a bit of a homecoming. Plus ca change…
Posted: March 15th, 2009 | Author: Maha Rafi Atal | Filed under: Ephemera | Tags: Alexander Hamilton, Columbia Journalism School, corruption, crime, David Brooks, David Cameron, drugs, Forbes, institutionalism, Ross Douthat, shield law, Teddy Roosevelt | 1 Comment »
Thank God Ban Ki-Moon hasn’t heard of me, because I know I’d be on his list of deadbeats for the appalling lapse of Cappuccino-making I’ve been doing of late. I have a handful of weak excuses:
Excuse 1. It was crunch time on
the Forbes Billionaires report, for which we’ll be continuing to roll out content all this week and next on our website. Right now, the big focus of reader feedback has been the
controversial listing of a Mexican drug baron–how does Forbes know where he got his money? How come criminal activity gets Allen Stanford knocked off the list but not El Chapo? My personal opinion is that there’s real money in the black market, and covering ugly realities is part of journalism, but I do think we ought to be critical, not adulatory
in our description of what he does. My own story for the report (link to come) is on two Nigerian billionaires, and I’ve tried to take my own advice. [
Updated: My story‘s up now]
Excuse 2. It was midterm season at Columbia and I’ve been swamped with work. One assignment may be of interest to readers: for my
computers and the law class, which
I blogged about before, I wrote about the shield bill now floating in Congress, that would protect journalists’ anonymous sources. I
blogged my basic take on the bill a while back and got some useful feedback in the comment section; in
my essay, I took up one suggestion, to define journalism as reporting, and combined with my desire to maintain journalism as a profession, to try to block out a 21st century interpretation of the 1st amendment. Any thoughts on the essay would be much appreciated, since I’ll be rewriting it in the coming weeks.
One thing that I’ve been thinking about while writing that essay, and indeed,
over the last few weeks, is where I actually fall on the political spectrum. Many lefty friends who usually regard me as an ally have been writing to me asking why I keep linking to conservative thinkers, praising centralized power and
waxing nostalgic for old values. Have I, one commenter wrote in an email, gone over to the dark side? No, I haven’t, but the concern suggests
my hunch about partisan sea change was correct: as
the left goes liberaltarian, I’m falling out of it. As the center goes Hamiltonian, I’m falling into it. And as
the right goes silly, I’m shedding not a tear at all.
It’s not yet a perfect shift: David Brooks, who has been
rejoicing alongside me about the rise of Hamiltonianism, still hasn’t made his break from the traditional right–he
has high praise for Alexander Hamilton (duh) and Teddy Roosevelt, but also David Cameron. News flash, Mr. Brooks: David Cameron is the opposite of an institutionalist; his first move will be
the evisceration of Britain’s health care system. But it’s a real shift: witness
the hiring of Ross Douthat to the NYT opinion page this week, consolidating Brooks and Douthat as pro-government conservatives (who like social spending) and putting them in the same room with pro-government liberals like Krugman (who likes markets, but wants them aggressively regulated) and liberal hawks like Friedman who likes big geostrategic initiatives. This is the institutionalist, Hamiltonian coalition. Conveniently, I already have a subscription.