Though I tend to prefer the Democrats, I used to think that Mitt Romney might make an acceptable choice for president because I was convinced he was a hypocrite. But now Mr. Romney has taken his hypocrisy one step too far.
Romney ‘s main claim to high office is that he is a successful businessman, a pragmatist, a problem solver. He seems to wear his ideology lightly. In Massachusetts he was pro-choice. Now he considers that position a “mistake.” As to how he made this mistake and what caused him to correct it he has no explanation. Obviously, he beliefs are based on expedience—that is they are not beliefs at all. In all likelihood, he would live and let live on this and other “social issues.” Or so I hoped.
With his speech yesterday on Mormonism, Romney insists that no one should be allowed to be against him because of his (Mormon) faith. On the other hand, Christians should be for him because of his (Christian) faith. I have known a few Mormons, and I could be friends with them without ever mentioning their faith. I doubt they’d want to impose their faith on me, even if they could. But Romney has thrown n his lot with those who would impose religious tests on policies—abortion being just one. I still don’t believe he believes in anything other than gaining the next rung on his resume. But I do think he is pragmatic enough that he would be slow to renounce a deal he has made with the Christian right is such detail.
Romney’s strength was that no one could believe his sincerity—his phoniness was too obvious. But now he is dug in and I con no longer trust him to be as fraudulent as he seemed.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Friday, October 19, 2007
Giuliani and Sarkozy
Lately Giuliani has been announcing his admiration for Nicholas Sarkozy. He has gone so far as to broadcat his "dream" about Sarkozy coming to America and the leading Democrats going to France. (Oddly, they all nearly die in a fiery mid-air plane crash in the process.)
I thought it was a pretty good line, even with the allusion to near death, until I learned the real reason that Giuliani so admires the French president. Sarkozy is getting divorced while in office. Now if Sarkozy comes here, he can advise Rudy-- and perhaps teach him how to find an attractive new wife.
And he is doing it in record time, the skids of France's divorce court having been nicely greased for the president.
It also brings to mnd a possible slogan for the campaign:
Rudy: Even his kids are voting against him
OR
Rudolph: If his family doesn't like him, why should you
I thought it was a pretty good line, even with the allusion to near death, until I learned the real reason that Giuliani so admires the French president. Sarkozy is getting divorced while in office. Now if Sarkozy comes here, he can advise Rudy-- and perhaps teach him how to find an attractive new wife.
And he is doing it in record time, the skids of France's divorce court having been nicely greased for the president.
It also brings to mnd a possible slogan for the campaign:
Rudy: Even his kids are voting against him
OR
Rudolph: If his family doesn't like him, why should you
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Bush’s Resignation: It’s a Start
Yesterday’s Iraq hearing told us a lot about what we already know: Iraq is a mess and the “progress” there is uneven at best. But it told us little or nothing about what we don’t know: How do we know when to get out, and, if not now, when?
The questions morally and strategically are: (1) whether our exit would leave the Iraqi’s worse off—and how much extra Iraqi violence and misery would be justified by the decline in death and suffering by U.S. troops? (2) What effect would the departure of U.S. forces have on our “interests” in the Middle East? Both questions are blurred by the desire for “victory” or the fear of “defeat.” It’s not clear now what we stand to win, nor what we might lose.
While these are hard questions, it seems clear that the president has no interest in studying them. Bush is so totally invested in his war—and in his desire not to “lose” it—that he will never change strategy: he will continue with the war, while allowing for the drawdown advocated by Gen. Pretaeus, which, as many have noted, is not a decision but an inevitability. The Democrats, meanwhile, control Congress, but not by enough votes to force the president to change. Thus we have a quagmire—not just in Iraq, but here at home.
Bush, of course, has no credibility on Iraq. To his credit, he has stopped talking about victory, I think, but without acknowledging that his previous course had failed and that his rhetoric was destructive. Still, he now must hide behind the general, who, after all, was selected presumably because he is largely in agreement with the president. (Whether the White House shaped or vetted Petraeus’ testimony is not the point. They chose the man who would give the testimony.) But he does have blocking power.
The only way out is for Bush to resign and leave office now, not waiting until 2009. Cheney, of course, would have to quit, too. The president’s departure would not sole the problem. But it would permit an honest reassessment of what, if anything, we owe the Iraq and what policies are best for us.
The questions morally and strategically are: (1) whether our exit would leave the Iraqi’s worse off—and how much extra Iraqi violence and misery would be justified by the decline in death and suffering by U.S. troops? (2) What effect would the departure of U.S. forces have on our “interests” in the Middle East? Both questions are blurred by the desire for “victory” or the fear of “defeat.” It’s not clear now what we stand to win, nor what we might lose.
While these are hard questions, it seems clear that the president has no interest in studying them. Bush is so totally invested in his war—and in his desire not to “lose” it—that he will never change strategy: he will continue with the war, while allowing for the drawdown advocated by Gen. Pretaeus, which, as many have noted, is not a decision but an inevitability. The Democrats, meanwhile, control Congress, but not by enough votes to force the president to change. Thus we have a quagmire—not just in Iraq, but here at home.
Bush, of course, has no credibility on Iraq. To his credit, he has stopped talking about victory, I think, but without acknowledging that his previous course had failed and that his rhetoric was destructive. Still, he now must hide behind the general, who, after all, was selected presumably because he is largely in agreement with the president. (Whether the White House shaped or vetted Petraeus’ testimony is not the point. They chose the man who would give the testimony.) But he does have blocking power.
The only way out is for Bush to resign and leave office now, not waiting until 2009. Cheney, of course, would have to quit, too. The president’s departure would not sole the problem. But it would permit an honest reassessment of what, if anything, we owe the Iraq and what policies are best for us.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Bush: Steadfast, Determined... Oblivious
Dead Certain, Robert Draper’s new book on George W. Bush, portrays the president as a decisionmaker. (See the NY Times review at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/books/05kaku.html?ref=books and the first chapter at http://nytimes.com/2007/09/04/books/05draperfirstchap.html ) Bush would have it that he is steadfast, determined, and an optimist. His detractors call him stubborn. Actually, he is neither. He is something worse: Bush is oblivious.
The book also portrays Bush as a man of big ideas. His determination and optimism are, in his mind, necessary to inspire confidence and, therefore, encourage the robust following of his lead. The conclusion may be correct, but the premise is just silly. Bush’s principal “big idea” is to spread democracy in the Middle East. But there is no evidence he ever had that idea until after 9-11 and his decision to invade Iraq. The idea followed the decision. For leaders (or anyone) truly driven by ideas, the cause and effect works the other way: decisions follow ideas.
As for inspiration through confidence and certainty, there must be something to that. No one can follow a waffler or a plan that even the planner appears not to believe. But any decent leader would calculate based on observed facts and events. This is where Bush goes off the rails. Bush’s certainty fooled a lot of the people for a while, but it has now become apparent.
Bush was certain Iraq had WMDs and was in league with Al Qaeda. The people believed him and followed him to war. He was confident that the war could be won on the cheap because the U.S. would be hailed as liberators. The people believed him, or at least did not question.
Then it all blew up. The occupation force was inadequate to secure the country, looting resulted. There was no planning for insurgency or civil war, even though expert advisers predicted both. As Iraq got worse, Bush failed to reckon with events. He was oblivious to the facts as they were and as they newly appeared. As a result he lost credibility precisely because of his certainty. While he is still in charge, he leads no one.
The book also portrays Bush as a man of big ideas. His determination and optimism are, in his mind, necessary to inspire confidence and, therefore, encourage the robust following of his lead. The conclusion may be correct, but the premise is just silly. Bush’s principal “big idea” is to spread democracy in the Middle East. But there is no evidence he ever had that idea until after 9-11 and his decision to invade Iraq. The idea followed the decision. For leaders (or anyone) truly driven by ideas, the cause and effect works the other way: decisions follow ideas.
As for inspiration through confidence and certainty, there must be something to that. No one can follow a waffler or a plan that even the planner appears not to believe. But any decent leader would calculate based on observed facts and events. This is where Bush goes off the rails. Bush’s certainty fooled a lot of the people for a while, but it has now become apparent.
Bush was certain Iraq had WMDs and was in league with Al Qaeda. The people believed him and followed him to war. He was confident that the war could be won on the cheap because the U.S. would be hailed as liberators. The people believed him, or at least did not question.
Then it all blew up. The occupation force was inadequate to secure the country, looting resulted. There was no planning for insurgency or civil war, even though expert advisers predicted both. As Iraq got worse, Bush failed to reckon with events. He was oblivious to the facts as they were and as they newly appeared. As a result he lost credibility precisely because of his certainty. While he is still in charge, he leads no one.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Wrong and Reviled all at once
The other day the Wall Street Journal ran a book review about a new history of the Marshall Plan. Apparently, of the minority of Americans who were even aware of the Marshall plan at the time, a small majority was opposed to it. In retrospect of course, it was a great idea. The reviewer compared George Marshall then to George W. Bush today. Both are sticking to unpopular policies, convinced they are right. This steadfastness is said to represent courage. We hear a lot of this today from loyal Bushies.
It’s an idiot’s argument. That one unpopular policy turned out to be right does not mean all unpopular policies are right. Nor is there any correlation between unpopularity and correctness. The correlation, I suspect, is the reverse. And in a democracy, unpopularity is a problem in itself, albeit a surmountable one in a democratic republic such as ours.
The courage argument is more insidious. The Iraq war is not something Bush started despite opposition. Just the opposite, at the start, the policy was wildly popular. It was still favored enough in 2004 that Bush was reelected on the strength of his war—and the so-called war on terror more globally. It has relentlessly shed support ever since.
This is the Marshall Plan in reverse and in more ways than one. Marshall’s idea was poorly understood and disliked at the start. But as it succeeded, it gained support, including in retrospect. Bush’s idea has been an utter failure and it has, therefore, lost favor. There’s a word for that, but “courage” ain’t it.
It’s an idiot’s argument. That one unpopular policy turned out to be right does not mean all unpopular policies are right. Nor is there any correlation between unpopularity and correctness. The correlation, I suspect, is the reverse. And in a democracy, unpopularity is a problem in itself, albeit a surmountable one in a democratic republic such as ours.
The courage argument is more insidious. The Iraq war is not something Bush started despite opposition. Just the opposite, at the start, the policy was wildly popular. It was still favored enough in 2004 that Bush was reelected on the strength of his war—and the so-called war on terror more globally. It has relentlessly shed support ever since.
This is the Marshall Plan in reverse and in more ways than one. Marshall’s idea was poorly understood and disliked at the start. But as it succeeded, it gained support, including in retrospect. Bush’s idea has been an utter failure and it has, therefore, lost favor. There’s a word for that, but “courage” ain’t it.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Libby gets nothing and likes it
Even if you believe that Scooter Libby was wronged (though he was convicted) or that the investigation of the Valerie Plame leak was wrong (though it was ordered by Ashcroft) Bush’s commutation of his prison term is phony. Bush said he “respects’ the jury’s verdict but that Libby’s sentence was “excessive.” Never mind that the sentence was imposed by a Republican judge and could have been appealed. If that’s the case, why not commute Libby’s sentence after he has served half or a quarter of his time or a single month? Wouldn’t that show more respect for the jury and the law, and still show mercy?
As for the large fine, who can doubt that the tab will be picked up by friends of Cheney, or Cheney himself, as a small down payment for favors granted and future favors expected.
As for the large fine, who can doubt that the tab will be picked up by friends of Cheney, or Cheney himself, as a small down payment for favors granted and future favors expected.
Monday, July 02, 2007
A Plan for Barry Bonds
Barry Bonds is taking a lot of heat, most of it unjustified. Even if he had retired before his then-glorious-now-notorious 73-home run season, he would have been a first-ballot hall-of-famer. Now he is reviled and hated (not only because of steroid allegations, but mostly because of them). Bonds stands on the precipice of hitting his 756th home run, breaking the record of Henry Aaron, who broke the even more celebrated record of Babe Ruth. What if Bonds hit his 754th homer and quit—announced his retirement out of respect of Aaron and in deference to those who accuse him of wrong. Everyone would know he could have done it. And he would be forever remembered for a dignified gesture, erasing a career of boorish acts. It would be an asterisk in reverse.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Bloomberg's Electoral Math
Mike Bloomberg’s departure from the Republican Party—convenient for a while, but no longer—sets the stage for his presidential bid. Of course, no third party or independent candidate has ever won the presidency. Only Teddy Roosevelt, a former president, has ever come close and that was in 1912.
But Bloomberg has a shot. The first and most obvious reason is that with a personal fortune tagged at anywhere from $5 billion to $20 billion, Bloomberg could outspend either party by writing himself a check for $500 million or $1 billion and not even notice the money was gone. This is how he became mayor—though if it was not for 9/11, Mark Green would have won in 2001. Even in Manhattan, it is possible to live off the interest of just $4 billion.
The real interesting question is what he could do with all that money. Ross Perot, for all his 19% of the popular vote, was not close to winning a single electoral vote. But he spent only $65 million. The key is not to win a large share of the popular vote, but a large enough share to win some electoral votes.
In the last two presidential elections, the winner scored just a thin margin of the electoral votes—Bush had 15 to spare in 2004. If the race between the major party candidates is similarly close in 2008, Bloomberg would need to win just a state or two to deny anyone else a majority in the Electoral College. If no one wins a majority, under the Constitution, the new House of Representative would pick the president.
For Bloomberg to win the House’s support, he’d certainly need a plurality of the popular and electoral vote. His charm, record, and media budget will have to take care of the former. Bloomberg could rack up 181 electoral votes (a plurality of 540) by winning California, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Washington—that’s a total of 199. These are either liberal states, or big swing states where the parties are neck and neck. It could happen.
But Bloomberg has a shot. The first and most obvious reason is that with a personal fortune tagged at anywhere from $5 billion to $20 billion, Bloomberg could outspend either party by writing himself a check for $500 million or $1 billion and not even notice the money was gone. This is how he became mayor—though if it was not for 9/11, Mark Green would have won in 2001. Even in Manhattan, it is possible to live off the interest of just $4 billion.
The real interesting question is what he could do with all that money. Ross Perot, for all his 19% of the popular vote, was not close to winning a single electoral vote. But he spent only $65 million. The key is not to win a large share of the popular vote, but a large enough share to win some electoral votes.
In the last two presidential elections, the winner scored just a thin margin of the electoral votes—Bush had 15 to spare in 2004. If the race between the major party candidates is similarly close in 2008, Bloomberg would need to win just a state or two to deny anyone else a majority in the Electoral College. If no one wins a majority, under the Constitution, the new House of Representative would pick the president.
For Bloomberg to win the House’s support, he’d certainly need a plurality of the popular and electoral vote. His charm, record, and media budget will have to take care of the former. Bloomberg could rack up 181 electoral votes (a plurality of 540) by winning California, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Washington—that’s a total of 199. These are either liberal states, or big swing states where the parties are neck and neck. It could happen.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Is this the end of Tony?
With just one episode left, there seems insufficient time for the Sopranos to wrap things up. Tony could get killed. That’s the quickest way and it seems more than possible now that Phil Leotardo has put a contract on his head and that the Lupertazzis have killed Bobby Bacala and (almost) Silvio. But I still think it’s too easy (and not just because the producers want to leave open the chance for a movie sequel).
LKA thinks that Dr. Melfi firing Tony as a patient is a signal to us that we should also lose faith in Tony’s humanity. Maybe. But I disagree for two reasons. First, murderer and adulterer though he may be, Tony has always been the hero of the show and essentially a sympathetic figure. For the show to end by saying that Tony was a bastard all along would, in essence, say the audience has wasted its time and sympathy on a monster. I don’t think that David Chase holds that view now or ever. I also think he would want to undermine the show’s premise in its final weeks.
I also think that Dr. Melfi’s turning against Tony is wrong and hypocritical. It has never been her role to reform Tony or to get him to stop his criminal ways. No, she takes her patient as she finds him, and tries to make him a healthier version of himself. After all, the doctors at the hospital know who Tony is, and no one says they should refuse to operate to save his life after he has been shot (ditto for Christopher and Phil). The studies now being bandied about by Melfi’s fellow psychiatrists all seem to be based on the role of a prison shrink whose role it would be to make the convicts into better citizens. That is just not Melfi’s job, and she would know that. (I did think the bit about him ripping up the magazine was pretty hilarious in this regard.) After all, Johnny Sack was a killer, too, and he was treated for his cancer by a world famous oncologist—and this was after his conviction and imprisonment.
One might compare the beginning of “Analyze This”, where Billy Crystal’s psychologist character tries to refuse treatment to Robert DeNiro’s mob boss. “What am I supposed to do, make you a happy, well adjusted gangster?” he asks. In the end, he comes to like DeNiro, and he helps him. In the same way, Melfi has always liked Tony, with the full knowledge that he had people murdered on a regular basis.
I must concede that there has been no advancement toward my theory that the show will end with AJ being arrested and him giving up Tony (except that AJ is out of the hospital and that Tony roughed him up a bit). But I am still going with it. One terrific way to end: AJ gets arrested. He is facing 20 years in jail—hate crimes, racketeering, assault, attempted murder on Junior. He agrees—or is merely asked—to testify against Tony. But meanwhile, Tony cannot be found. He is up there sitting in the attic, slowly going mad, and the show ends with doubt about whether he will give himself up to help his son, or kill himself, or get killed. (Interestingly, Phil was also in his attic when he refused to see Tony when Tony came to his door—he’s a bit nuts as well.)
One of the great things about the Sopranos is that Chase doesn’t feel the need to put a bow on things. It can be messy, like life, with no neat endings. Every season has ended that way—maybe the whole series will end untidily as well. By the same token, every season has ended with the focus on Tony’s nuclear family. If the show ends with him, Carmela and the kids finally breaking apart—over AJ especially—that is the way it could really wrap up.
Whatever happens, this has been a fantastic season, maybe the best ever. However it ends works for me.
Friday, May 25, 2007
I do not recall
Everybody is up in arms about poor Alberto Gonzalez. It's partly about how he let politics subvert the Justice Department, partly about how he seems to have lied about what he did, and partly about how he can't seem to remember what happened. Reports note that Alberto testified he could not recall 45 times at one recent congressional session.
In this total recall failure, Alberto has nothing on former Mayor Giuliani and NYC TLC Chairman Matthew Daus. When I deposed Giuliani in Padberg et al v. McGrath-McKechnie et al, Giuliani said testified he could not recall 99 times-- in a three-hour deposition. Click here for a transcript of the deposition.
In a three-hour deposition in Nnebe et al v. Daus et al, Matthew Daus testified he could not recall 85 times, including many times as to events in the last year. Aberto is a piker by comparison.
More on the Padberg case
In this total recall failure, Alberto has nothing on former Mayor Giuliani and NYC TLC Chairman Matthew Daus. When I deposed Giuliani in Padberg et al v. McGrath-McKechnie et al, Giuliani said testified he could not recall 99 times-- in a three-hour deposition. Click here for a transcript of the deposition.
In a three-hour deposition in Nnebe et al v. Daus et al, Matthew Daus testified he could not recall 85 times, including many times as to events in the last year. Aberto is a piker by comparison.
More on the Padberg case
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Chase on Terror
This season's Sopranos contains an element that has been little discussed but is just terrific: a satire on the war on terror. Every so often, FBI Agent Harris and his partner come around to ask Tony is he has any information about possible terrorists at the ports. Tony, though it's technically ratting, is eager to bank goodwill, so he complies, giving the agents the names of the only two Arabs he knows. At first, he doesn't even know their names-- all he knows is they used to hang around at the Bada Bing--but he gets them from Christopher, now dead.
The agents are all too happy to pursue this non-lead. They later show Tony pictures of the pair and say they are possible suspects for "financing." This could mean anything, of course. Even Tony knows it, repeating "possible" back to the agents. And as the tired agents slink away, they remark that they don't even know if the possible suspects are in the country. So it goes in the war on terror.
Meanwhile, Tony has committed murder, aggravated assault, environmental crimes, conspiracy to hijack. His wife has conspired to bribe a building inspector and his son has committed aggravated assault and a hate crime. Stll these agents, who never managed to arrest Tony, are looking the other way at possible "finance" violations.
The agents are all too happy to pursue this non-lead. They later show Tony pictures of the pair and say they are possible suspects for "financing." This could mean anything, of course. Even Tony knows it, repeating "possible" back to the agents. And as the tired agents slink away, they remark that they don't even know if the possible suspects are in the country. So it goes in the war on terror.
Meanwhile, Tony has committed murder, aggravated assault, environmental crimes, conspiracy to hijack. His wife has conspired to bribe a building inspector and his son has committed aggravated assault and a hate crime. Stll these agents, who never managed to arrest Tony, are looking the other way at possible "finance" violations.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
AJ again
My theory that Tony's son AJ will cause his final downfall is gaining traction. Tim Noah writes in Slate:
I agree, but as far as the cops or the feds will be concerned AJ is no inncocent. He has committed three serious felonies-- the acid-on-foot incident, the attempt on Junior, and, most recently, the hate crime against the Somali cyclist. No accessory, AJ struck at least one blow in each case. He could be liable on some 3 strikes theory.
And I think Tony won't fight it. He'll agree to go away to save AJ. It may even be his idea. Tony has always justified every sin by saying he is providing for or prtecting his family. In this he is the typical suburbanite whoe buys a Hummer or a McMansion on the grounds that "it's good for the kids" when, in fact, it's what the parents want. But Tony's redeeming feature, I think, is he really believe it. Thus Toby will be be the hero AND get away from the life that has long tormented him.
I also don't think he'll take the gang down with him. Snitches rat out higher-ups, not subordinate. He may rat out Phil.
I also don' think AJ is unsympathetic. Just pathetic.
We've discussed in the past how A.J., one of the few characters on The Sopranos who is not a murderer, is nonetheless the least sympathetic character in the series. He's spoiled, he's stupid, he's narcissistic, he's a whiner, and he's mean. But maybe not as mean as we thought. He seems genuinely horrified when Jason Gervase and his thug pals beat up a black bicyclist who crashes into Jason's car door. (Needless to say, the Italians call the bicyclist something a good deal less civil than black.) The violence and hatred that A.J. is witnessing with this new crowd is escalating, and he can't take it. "Why can't we all just get along?" A.J. tells his shrink, echoing Rodney King. Is series creator David Chase rendering A.J. more sympathetic so that we'll miss him when he gets killed, the outcome you suggest? Perhaps. But I prefer your alternative notion that, instead of dying, A.J. may kill someone. Or, being A.J., that he will witness a murder.
Here's how I see it going. The cops nab A.J., and he immediately confesses to being an accessory. The district attorney prepares to lock the kid up for years. But there is one way A.J. could get his sentence shortened. Tony could confess to two or three of the many murders the cops suspect him of ordering or committing. "Look, Tony, we know your kid isn't a criminal. He isn't the one who should do hard time. You are." Carmela and Tony fight bitterly over this proposed deal. Tony says A.J. can beat this rap. Carmela is horrified that Tony is willing to sacrifice his son to save his own skin. "You are a murderer, Tony, and if you won't tell them, I will!" The words are too much for Tony to bear. He pummels Carmela with his fists, really beats her up, for the first time in his life. (Unlike a certain recently departed HBO chief I could name, Tony has never assaulted a female.) Bruised and bleeding, Carmela calls the cops. They arrive, and Tony realizes he has no home left to defend. He confesses to three murders to save A.J. to whatever extent he can. The price turns out to be not only Tony's confession, but also Tony ratting out the whole gang—Silvio, Paulie, Bobby, Hesh, Janice, maybe even Uncle Junior. The only Soprano left unscathed is Meadow, who heads off to medical school in a daze, leaving Carmela, black and blue, alone in the house. Carmela's cherished delusion of sustainable mob-funded affluence is dashed. She will lose her house, she has already lost her husband and son, and Meadow may never again want to admit she even has a family. Goodbye, Bloomies; hello, Filene's Basement. Fade to black.
I agree, but as far as the cops or the feds will be concerned AJ is no inncocent. He has committed three serious felonies-- the acid-on-foot incident, the attempt on Junior, and, most recently, the hate crime against the Somali cyclist. No accessory, AJ struck at least one blow in each case. He could be liable on some 3 strikes theory.
And I think Tony won't fight it. He'll agree to go away to save AJ. It may even be his idea. Tony has always justified every sin by saying he is providing for or prtecting his family. In this he is the typical suburbanite whoe buys a Hummer or a McMansion on the grounds that "it's good for the kids" when, in fact, it's what the parents want. But Tony's redeeming feature, I think, is he really believe it. Thus Toby will be be the hero AND get away from the life that has long tormented him.
I also don't think he'll take the gang down with him. Snitches rat out higher-ups, not subordinate. He may rat out Phil.
I also don' think AJ is unsympathetic. Just pathetic.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Itty bitty conflicts of interest
The Times just ran a big story about potential conflicts of interest among psychiatrists who prescribe psycho-pharameceuticals, mainly to children. Psychiatrists, Children and Drug Industry’s Role (5/10/07)
The drug companies make payments to doctors who give lectures or do studies, and then precsribe the drugs.
While some of the payments in the article are substantial, most are quite small, the average being about $2000. The scale raises the questions, can docs be swayed for a few grand. The answer is yes-- even if the docs don't know it.
The Times quotes Dr. Steven E. Hyman, the provost of Harvard University and former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, who says: "There’s an irony that psychiatrists ask patients to have insights into themselves, but we don’t connect the wires in our own lives about how money is affecting our profession and putting our patients at risk.”
I have some experienec in this question in the administrative law area. In the Padberg case, I retained Prof. George Loewenstein of Carnegie Mellon University, perhaps the world's leading expert in conflicts of interest. In a report filed in in the case, he wrote:
This case involved the bias not of doctors, but of administrataive law judges. But the principle is the same.
For more on Padberg, see Background Brief, Case File, and my Brief on the Corruption of the Judges.
The drug companies make payments to doctors who give lectures or do studies, and then precsribe the drugs.
While some of the payments in the article are substantial, most are quite small, the average being about $2000. The scale raises the questions, can docs be swayed for a few grand. The answer is yes-- even if the docs don't know it.
The Times quotes Dr. Steven E. Hyman, the provost of Harvard University and former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, who says: "There’s an irony that psychiatrists ask patients to have insights into themselves, but we don’t connect the wires in our own lives about how money is affecting our profession and putting our patients at risk.”
I have some experienec in this question in the administrative law area. In the Padberg case, I retained Prof. George Loewenstein of Carnegie Mellon University, perhaps the world's leading expert in conflicts of interest. In a report filed in in the case, he wrote:
When decision makers receive benefits or even small gifts from interested parties, their judgments are subject to an unconscious and unintentional self-serving bias, even when they try to remain objective. When individuals have a stake in reaching a particular conclusion, they weigh arguments in a biased fashion that favors a particular conclusion. As much as they may try, individuals have proven unable to achieve neutrality or objectivity when they have a personal interest in arriving at a specific conclusion. Because bias induced by monetary interests is unconscious and unintentional, there is little hope in controlling it when monetary interests exist.
This case involved the bias not of doctors, but of administrataive law judges. But the principle is the same.
For more on Padberg, see Background Brief, Case File, and my Brief on the Corruption of the Judges.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Is this the end of Tony?
My prediction for the Sopranos denouement—that A.J.’s crisis will spell Tony’s demise (see 4/23/07 entry) is looking better. In this week’s episode, A.J. becomes involved with some college bookies. On a lark (their’s, not his) they kidnap one of their bettors, beat him and pour acid on his foot. A.J. isn’t just along for the ride; he’s driving the car. The victim has been introduced the “Anthony Soprano Jr.” as if he is a member of the gang. Thus, the feds can nail A.J. on serious federal crimes, including perhaps a RICO count. The sand and beautiful part is that Tony put A.J. up to it, insisting he go to a stripper party—and thinking even after the fact that A.J. doing so was a good idea. After all, it got the depressed and newly medicated scion of the family out of the house. Now when the feds grab A.J. the pressure will be on for him to give up Tony, and Tony can only tell him to do just that. Thus Tony will fall by his own hand. A perfect demise: surprising and inevitable at once.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Bennet Da Bozo
Now that Paul Wolfowitz has hired Bob Bennett his real troubles may begin. Bennet, you may recall, reperesented Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones case. Not only did he lose the case, a bungled deposition led directy to Clinton's impreachment. One theory may be that Bennett, the brother of the right wing former secretary of education, screwed Clinton up on purpose. At least now Bennett is working for a Reoublican who deserves a worse fate that forced resignation from the World Bank.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Are we really safer with Bush's lap dog?
Rudy Giuliani, it appears, is claiming that only a Repulican can keep us safe from terror: He said: "If a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001... Never ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for (terrorists) to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!"
What a fraud.
9/11 happened on Bush's watch. His administration failed to observe the warning signs. He promoted Condi Rice who failed personally. So why should we feel safe with another Republican, especially one like Rudy, who played Bush's lap dog.
We should always recall that the hero Rudy ran away from the Trade Center. The heros that day were running in the opposite direction.
What a fraud.
9/11 happened on Bush's watch. His administration failed to observe the warning signs. He promoted Condi Rice who failed personally. So why should we feel safe with another Republican, especially one like Rudy, who played Bush's lap dog.
We should always recall that the hero Rudy ran away from the Trade Center. The heros that day were running in the opposite direction.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Halberstam
I ran into the great David Halbsertam once in journalism school and a few times after. In a short lecture, he told us how to write a book. Here is my account http://www.dackman.homestead.com/files/Halberstam.htm (reproduced below):
A Grunt, not a Star, Halberstam Reveals the Secret of His Success
By DAN ACKMAN
Pathfinding war correspondent and celebrated author David Halbertstam told Journalism School students on April 5 [2000] that he remains driven not by awards or glory, but by the "infantry work" of reporting and writing.
Halberstam, author of The PowersThat Be, The Fifties, The Breaks of the Game and 13 other books, attributed his success not to his innate ability, but to his doggedness, his curiosity, and to his willingness to follow his heart. "My success came more from being a grunt than it did from being a star," he told students in James Stewart's Narrative Writing class.
Coming out of college in the mid '50s, Halberstam said he wasn't a top student (though he did go to Harvard, referring to it first as a "school in Boston"), but he knew what he wanted, which was to be a journalist.
As a managing editor of The Crimson, he said he could have gotten a job (as a copy boy) on The New York Times or as a reporter for the Boston Globe. But he sensed that in the wake of Brown vs. The Board of Education, the big story would be about race and civil rights, so he went south. Halberstam took a job on a small newspaper in Mississippi, switching to a larger one in Tennessee about a year later.
This was the beginning of what he called his "12-year apprenticeship" the last six of which were with The Times, mostly as a foreign correspondent. Coming out of college, he says he knew he was good-- "I was quick," he said-- but serving those years in Tennessee made him better. "By the time I got to the Times, I was really ready to go," he said.
The Times sent him to the Congo and later to Vietnam, where he did the reporting which led to The Best and the Brightest, his classic book on the war, and to a fabled career as an author and in long-form magazine writing. He has alternated between books on politics and government and books on sports, most recently one about basketball star Michael Jordan.
His huge success in this field, Halberstam said, is based on his "passion to know." A good book starts with a question, he said. The Best and The Brightest, for instance, started with this one: if the officials in the Kennedy and Johnson administration were so smart and so capable, how did they lead the nation to a war that was such a disaster?
The key, he said, is to pick a question interesting enough to sustain the reporter for two or three years, one which will later sustain the reader as well. It is also critical to find a way to dramatize that question and to "go places where the cameras can't go."
He says he keeps a mental list of people to see, often starting with peripheral figures and circling in to the main subject or subjects. Along the way his knowledge deepens and his questions keep getting sharper. The last question at every interview is a always the same: "Who else should I see?"
Conducting two interviews per day, Halberstam compiles massive quantities of notes, which he later speaks into a tape recorder. He says his one luxury is that he pays someone else to transcribe the notes.
Halberstam said that early in life he probably suffered from a form of Attention Deficit Disorder which steered him away from other fields. He knew his destiny was to be a reporter, so "I knew I couldn't screw up." So far, he seems to have kept the screw-ups to a minimum, and he has been awarded with a two Pulitzer Prizes and roughly 18 honorary degrees. He has sold a fair number of books along the way.
But it's the life that sustains him: "And it has been a terrific life. Each book was a university. That's the best part of it, not the honorary degrees, growing as a person. I've been paid to learn for 45 years.... I find it thrilling."
A Grunt, not a Star, Halberstam Reveals the Secret of His Success
By DAN ACKMAN
Pathfinding war correspondent and celebrated author David Halbertstam told Journalism School students on April 5 [2000] that he remains driven not by awards or glory, but by the "infantry work" of reporting and writing.
Halberstam, author of The PowersThat Be, The Fifties, The Breaks of the Game and 13 other books, attributed his success not to his innate ability, but to his doggedness, his curiosity, and to his willingness to follow his heart. "My success came more from being a grunt than it did from being a star," he told students in James Stewart's Narrative Writing class.
Coming out of college in the mid '50s, Halberstam said he wasn't a top student (though he did go to Harvard, referring to it first as a "school in Boston"), but he knew what he wanted, which was to be a journalist.
As a managing editor of The Crimson, he said he could have gotten a job (as a copy boy) on The New York Times or as a reporter for the Boston Globe. But he sensed that in the wake of Brown vs. The Board of Education, the big story would be about race and civil rights, so he went south. Halberstam took a job on a small newspaper in Mississippi, switching to a larger one in Tennessee about a year later.
This was the beginning of what he called his "12-year apprenticeship" the last six of which were with The Times, mostly as a foreign correspondent. Coming out of college, he says he knew he was good-- "I was quick," he said-- but serving those years in Tennessee made him better. "By the time I got to the Times, I was really ready to go," he said.
The Times sent him to the Congo and later to Vietnam, where he did the reporting which led to The Best and the Brightest, his classic book on the war, and to a fabled career as an author and in long-form magazine writing. He has alternated between books on politics and government and books on sports, most recently one about basketball star Michael Jordan.
His huge success in this field, Halberstam said, is based on his "passion to know." A good book starts with a question, he said. The Best and The Brightest, for instance, started with this one: if the officials in the Kennedy and Johnson administration were so smart and so capable, how did they lead the nation to a war that was such a disaster?
The key, he said, is to pick a question interesting enough to sustain the reporter for two or three years, one which will later sustain the reader as well. It is also critical to find a way to dramatize that question and to "go places where the cameras can't go."
He says he keeps a mental list of people to see, often starting with peripheral figures and circling in to the main subject or subjects. Along the way his knowledge deepens and his questions keep getting sharper. The last question at every interview is a always the same: "Who else should I see?"
Conducting two interviews per day, Halberstam compiles massive quantities of notes, which he later speaks into a tape recorder. He says his one luxury is that he pays someone else to transcribe the notes.
Halberstam said that early in life he probably suffered from a form of Attention Deficit Disorder which steered him away from other fields. He knew his destiny was to be a reporter, so "I knew I couldn't screw up." So far, he seems to have kept the screw-ups to a minimum, and he has been awarded with a two Pulitzer Prizes and roughly 18 honorary degrees. He has sold a fair number of books along the way.
But it's the life that sustains him: "And it has been a terrific life. Each book was a university. That's the best part of it, not the honorary degrees, growing as a person. I've been paid to learn for 45 years.... I find it thrilling."
Monday, April 23, 2007
Sopranos, decline and fall
So far this season has been terrific. On the other hand there has been no progress toward my predicted ending. The last season has emphasized the demise of the Mafia: Junior's degeneration; the moronic violence of the NYC family; Christopher's mining his experience for showbiz; Tony's paranoia. But there has been almost nothing about Tony's nuclear family. This is odd because at the end of the day, the show has always been about Tony and his wife and kids.
As gangster, Tony is a survivor, mostly based on lock-- the rats who die just before they can testify, even of natural causes, like Ray, to say nothing of the ones they kill, like Pussy or Adriana. But I still think that amidst the decline and chaos, Tony will be felled by the failures of own household, specifically his idiot son AJ, though they have barely figures in the show at all this season-- so far.
As gangster, Tony is a survivor, mostly based on lock-- the rats who die just before they can testify, even of natural causes, like Ray, to say nothing of the ones they kill, like Pussy or Adriana. But I still think that amidst the decline and chaos, Tony will be felled by the failures of own household, specifically his idiot son AJ, though they have barely figures in the show at all this season-- so far.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
My prediction for the Sopranos
I predict the last season of the Sopranos will turn on Tony's relationship with A.J. Tony's insipid son will get himself in trouble either through his relationship with his new Hispanic girlfriend (who undoubtedly knows who A.J.'s father is and may seek to benefit from the connection) or by trying to trade on the family name to complete some criminal transaction of his own. Because he is weak and incompetent, A.J. will get caught. The feds will try to get A.J. to rat out Tony. A.J. will resist, but ultimately, Tony himself will tell A.J. to take the deal. This Tony will sacrifice himself for his family. This willingness to sacrifice, at the end of the day, is Tony's justification for all the crimes and violence that he has perpetrated. By going to jail for A,J., Tony will finally get out of the mob life that he has long ceased to enjoy. He will also prove to himself and others what he has always said: that he was doing it to provide for and protect his wife and kids all along.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Executive Privilege Primer
Executive privilege (also known as “deliberative process privilege” protects confidential pre-decisional communications such as recommendations, draft documents, proposals, suggestions, and other subjective documents which reflect the personal opinions of the writer rather than the policy of the agency. The privilege is based on the notion that an assurance of confidentiality will promote “candid discussion between officials.” As the Supreme Court has stated, “The point is not to protect Government secrecy pure and simple.” DOI v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 9 (U.S. 2001). The deliberative process privilege shields only those communications designed to assist an agency policy-maker in arriving at a decision and which are actually related to the policy formulation process.
For a particular document or communication to be protected by the privilege, the agency must demonstrate that the document is both “predecisional” and “deliberative.” The document must be predecisional, that is, prepared in order to assist an agency policy-maker in arriving at a decision. Second, the document must be deliberative, that is, actually related to the process by which policies are formulated. The privilege does not cover procedures or implementation strategy or individual cases (including personnel decisions). It covers policy.
To demonstrate that a document is predecisional, an agency must: (i) pinpoint the specific decision to which the document correlates, (ii) establish that its author prepared the document for the purpose of assisting the agency official charged with making the agency decision, and (iii) verify that the document precedes, in temporal sequence, the decision to which it relates.
Documents that are purely factual are not protected by executive privilege. Mere instructions to subordinate officials as to the implementation of policy are not privileged either. Just because a document satisfies these requirements, however, it does not mean that the deliberative process privilege bars its disclosure. An agency may be required to disclose a document otherwise entitled to protection if the agency has chosen expressly to adopt or incorporate by reference a memorandum previously covered by the privilege in a final rule or opinion.
As with the attorney-client privilege, it is the burden of the party raising the deliberative process privilege to demonstrate its applicability. Finally, the deliberative process does not protect third-party documents submitted in connection with an agency decision, unless the third party is acting an agent of the government. The privilege is waived under certain circumstances if the documents have been disclosed to a third party that is not within the agency.
For a particular document or communication to be protected by the privilege, the agency must demonstrate that the document is both “predecisional” and “deliberative.” The document must be predecisional, that is, prepared in order to assist an agency policy-maker in arriving at a decision. Second, the document must be deliberative, that is, actually related to the process by which policies are formulated. The privilege does not cover procedures or implementation strategy or individual cases (including personnel decisions). It covers policy.
To demonstrate that a document is predecisional, an agency must: (i) pinpoint the specific decision to which the document correlates, (ii) establish that its author prepared the document for the purpose of assisting the agency official charged with making the agency decision, and (iii) verify that the document precedes, in temporal sequence, the decision to which it relates.
Documents that are purely factual are not protected by executive privilege. Mere instructions to subordinate officials as to the implementation of policy are not privileged either. Just because a document satisfies these requirements, however, it does not mean that the deliberative process privilege bars its disclosure. An agency may be required to disclose a document otherwise entitled to protection if the agency has chosen expressly to adopt or incorporate by reference a memorandum previously covered by the privilege in a final rule or opinion.
As with the attorney-client privilege, it is the burden of the party raising the deliberative process privilege to demonstrate its applicability. Finally, the deliberative process does not protect third-party documents submitted in connection with an agency decision, unless the third party is acting an agent of the government. The privilege is waived under certain circumstances if the documents have been disclosed to a third party that is not within the agency.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The Justice Department and the TLC
The emerging Justice Department scandal regarding the politicized firing of U.S. Attorneys is reminiscent of the Taxi & Limousine Commission, both in terms of Operation Refusal and the TLC's summary suspensions.
My class action lawsuit about a Giuliani's Operation Refusal-- suspending the licenses of cab drivers illegally based on phony, politicized charges (together with the attempt to revoke those licenses). This was obviously a big-deal for the cabbies, but a yawn for even the local beat reporters. This was despite the politicization of the agency and the corruption of the judges.
The cabbies had no real defense, and only the class action rules allowed them to sue after the fact. When the city was required to pay $7 million in damages, it got a little ink, but not much.
The lesson is that small injustices are very easy to hide.
Paul Krugman makes this point very well.
My class action lawsuit about a Giuliani's Operation Refusal-- suspending the licenses of cab drivers illegally based on phony, politicized charges (together with the attempt to revoke those licenses). This was obviously a big-deal for the cabbies, but a yawn for even the local beat reporters. This was despite the politicization of the agency and the corruption of the judges.
The cabbies had no real defense, and only the class action rules allowed them to sue after the fact. When the city was required to pay $7 million in damages, it got a little ink, but not much.
The lesson is that small injustices are very easy to hide.
Paul Krugman makes this point very well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
