Shots In The Dark
Wednesday, August 31, 2024
More Reasons to Dislike The Red Sox
They're Jesus freaks who believe that in playing baseball, they are glorifying God.
The Sox, according to this article in the Boston Globe, have more evangelical Christians than any other team in baseball.
''This is our platform, our place to speak our faith and live our faith," pitcher Mike Timlin said. ''This is a special gift from God, to play baseball, and if we can spread God's word by doing that, then we've almost fulfilled our calling."
What a load of crap. As if God gives a damn that the Sox won the World Series. (If so, he must really love the Florida Marlins, who have, in their short existence, won twice as many World Series as the Sox have in the past nine decades.)
I wonder what Timlin, Curt Schilling, et al have to say about Johnny Damon's stripper wife. (Perhaps they've tried to "convert" her? She could be Schilling's only save of the year.) And I wonder if they've read the article in the new issue of Boston magazine about the well-known Sox player who was recently conducting a flagrant affair with a 19-year-old freshman at Northeastern University?
The Sox, according to this article in the Boston Globe, have more evangelical Christians than any other team in baseball.
''This is our platform, our place to speak our faith and live our faith," pitcher Mike Timlin said. ''This is a special gift from God, to play baseball, and if we can spread God's word by doing that, then we've almost fulfilled our calling."
What a load of crap. As if God gives a damn that the Sox won the World Series. (If so, he must really love the Florida Marlins, who have, in their short existence, won twice as many World Series as the Sox have in the past nine decades.)
I wonder what Timlin, Curt Schilling, et al have to say about Johnny Damon's stripper wife. (Perhaps they've tried to "convert" her? She could be Schilling's only save of the year.) And I wonder if they've read the article in the new issue of Boston magazine about the well-known Sox player who was recently conducting a flagrant affair with a 19-year-old freshman at Northeastern University?
Speaking of National Parks
...did everyone see this NYT editorial about the administration's secret plan to trash them? One of Dick Cheney's former aides wants to open all the national parks to snowmobiling, off-roading, and other "recreational" activities. He also wants to sell religious literature there and strip any reference to evolution from park materials. And so on.
A couple of things about this...
First, the president needs to pay closer attention to what's going on in his administration. Even if he supports this, there's no real political gain to be had in such a plan. How many millions of Americans go to the Grand Canyon and love its pristine, unspoiled nature? And how many Americans really want to ride all-terrain vehicles in the Grand Canyon? I have to believe the first group is a lot larger than the second.
Second, Dick Cheney and the people who work for him have a very odd view of nature. Under his soft-spoken manner, Cheney is an extremist, and that soft-spoken manner only makes him more dangerous. My old colleague, Robert Sam Anson, is working on a book about Cheney's role in the Bush presidency. Anson's an old-school investigative journalist, and I can't wait for the book.
Third, how many other wacko right-wing ideologues are tunneling around in the depths of the Bush administration, making mischief in areas of policy that no one's paying any attention to while we're at war?
A couple of things about this...
First, the president needs to pay closer attention to what's going on in his administration. Even if he supports this, there's no real political gain to be had in such a plan. How many millions of Americans go to the Grand Canyon and love its pristine, unspoiled nature? And how many Americans really want to ride all-terrain vehicles in the Grand Canyon? I have to believe the first group is a lot larger than the second.
Second, Dick Cheney and the people who work for him have a very odd view of nature. Under his soft-spoken manner, Cheney is an extremist, and that soft-spoken manner only makes him more dangerous. My old colleague, Robert Sam Anson, is working on a book about Cheney's role in the Bush presidency. Anson's an old-school investigative journalist, and I can't wait for the book.
Third, how many other wacko right-wing ideologues are tunneling around in the depths of the Bush administration, making mischief in areas of policy that no one's paying any attention to while we're at war?
Cindy Sheehan on the Tube
I missed a lot of current events while I was in Mexico, mostly on purpose; things are kinda grim right now—poverty rate up; gas prices up; national parks, under attack; killings in Iraq, up; Pat Roberston, advocating assassination; Bush vacation, still continuing—and sometimes you just need to take a break. Plus, it's hard to talk about US affairs while in any other country in the world, because everyone else just thinks the United States has lost its mind. (Funnily enough, just like they did when the GOP was making such a hoo-hah out of Monica Lewinsky....why does the GOP continue to do these things that make no sense to anyone beyond our borders?) I'm sufficiently a patriot so that I don't like to travel to another country and trash the United States...but on the other hand, how can you defend the Bush administration these days?
So, I took a break.
I eased back into politics last night by watching Cindy Sheehan giving an interview to Bill Maher on Real Time with Bill Maher. There are times when I think Sheehan is loopy, or worse, like when she talks about "Palestine." But when she sticks to the subject of the war in Iraq, she is pretty impressive: thoughtful, hard to fluster, and moral without being preachy. She has two things going for her: she's honest, and she speaks common sense. You can tell, that's what drives the right-wingers nuts about her. She's not fancy, and she speaks the truth—her truth, at least. They want to discredit her, but it's not so easy to do.
I think that's what makes her such a powerful, if unexpected, counterpoint to the president. When he talks of Iraq these days, he's neither making sense nor being honest; it's hard to believe that even he believes what he's saying about all the terrific progress we're making there. Bush has a credibility gap, and his only response to the problem is to keep repeating the same rhetoric that worked in the months after 9/11.
It's enough to make me wonder what Karl Rove is up to...because a president who once showed such deft political skills seems to have acquired a tin ear. Meanwhile, Sheehan is acquiring a touch of Harriet Beecher Stowe—the little woman who, to paraphrase Lincoln, didn't start a war, but may be ending one.
So, I took a break.
I eased back into politics last night by watching Cindy Sheehan giving an interview to Bill Maher on Real Time with Bill Maher. There are times when I think Sheehan is loopy, or worse, like when she talks about "Palestine." But when she sticks to the subject of the war in Iraq, she is pretty impressive: thoughtful, hard to fluster, and moral without being preachy. She has two things going for her: she's honest, and she speaks common sense. You can tell, that's what drives the right-wingers nuts about her. She's not fancy, and she speaks the truth—her truth, at least. They want to discredit her, but it's not so easy to do.
I think that's what makes her such a powerful, if unexpected, counterpoint to the president. When he talks of Iraq these days, he's neither making sense nor being honest; it's hard to believe that even he believes what he's saying about all the terrific progress we're making there. Bush has a credibility gap, and his only response to the problem is to keep repeating the same rhetoric that worked in the months after 9/11.
It's enough to make me wonder what Karl Rove is up to...because a president who once showed such deft political skills seems to have acquired a tin ear. Meanwhile, Sheehan is acquiring a touch of Harriet Beecher Stowe—the little woman who, to paraphrase Lincoln, didn't start a war, but may be ending one.
Tuesday, August 30, 2024
Sometimes Blogger Drives You Crazy...
...like when you write an entire post about Mexico, and it vanishes when you hit the "publish post" button, never to reappear.
So I'm going to see if I can muster the patience to rewrite that post, and in the meantime, here's a photo of a new friend I made in Mexico—in the Gulf of Mexico, to be exact. I'd guess he—though actually I have no idea if he's a he—was about twelve feet from wing to wing.
...like when you write an entire post about Mexico, and it vanishes when you hit the "publish post" button, never to reappear.
So I'm going to see if I can muster the patience to rewrite that post, and in the meantime, here's a photo of a new friend I made in Mexico—in the Gulf of Mexico, to be exact. I'd guess he—though actually I have no idea if he's a he—was about twelve feet from wing to wing.
Wednesday, August 24, 2024
The World is Getting Smaller
...and yet, there are still remarkable, out of the way places where you really do feel far away from it all. Like the place where I am now, a Mexican island in the Gulf of Mexico. I'd tell you the name, but I don't want everyone to know the secret of this miraculous, beautiful place. I'm selfish that way. Suffice it to say that you can see from one side of the island to the other; there is no pavement, there are no cars; the water is about 85 degrees and clear and clean; and the people are warm and welcoming.
This morning I hopped on a boat with my dive buddy, Peter, and we motored out about an hour and a half into the Gulf to go snorkeling with whale sharks. Do you know them? They're the largest fish in the ocean, but calm and gentle. And did I mention large? We swam with two, the second of which was 25, maybe 30 feet long...but allowed us close enough to touch it, if we wanted to. At one point I managed to swim alongside the animal and make eye contact with it; its eye was about the size of my fist. From the front, I saw an enormous mouth, about as wide as my outspread arms. Looking down the body, I couldn't see the tail...until I drifted a bit, or the shark swam a bit, and I passed over a striking black body with white spots and a massive, powerful tail. A couple of remoras were hanging on for the ride, and schools of small silver fish were hanging out around the whale's mouth--hoping, I suppose, for some sort of plankton spillage. (Any naturalists out there who could inform me what was really going on?)
The whale sharks weren't the only remarkable creatures feeding on the plankton at the top of the warm sea; there were also manta rays gliding along. Diving earlier on this trip, I'd seen some eagle rays feeding, and they are beautiful, unearthly creatures. But the manta rays are so large, it's a little hard to conceive of; I'd guess the wingspan of one we saw was a good fifteen-feet across.
More to come...
This morning I hopped on a boat with my dive buddy, Peter, and we motored out about an hour and a half into the Gulf to go snorkeling with whale sharks. Do you know them? They're the largest fish in the ocean, but calm and gentle. And did I mention large? We swam with two, the second of which was 25, maybe 30 feet long...but allowed us close enough to touch it, if we wanted to. At one point I managed to swim alongside the animal and make eye contact with it; its eye was about the size of my fist. From the front, I saw an enormous mouth, about as wide as my outspread arms. Looking down the body, I couldn't see the tail...until I drifted a bit, or the shark swam a bit, and I passed over a striking black body with white spots and a massive, powerful tail. A couple of remoras were hanging on for the ride, and schools of small silver fish were hanging out around the whale's mouth--hoping, I suppose, for some sort of plankton spillage. (Any naturalists out there who could inform me what was really going on?)
The whale sharks weren't the only remarkable creatures feeding on the plankton at the top of the warm sea; there were also manta rays gliding along. Diving earlier on this trip, I'd seen some eagle rays feeding, and they are beautiful, unearthly creatures. But the manta rays are so large, it's a little hard to conceive of; I'd guess the wingspan of one we saw was a good fifteen-feet across.
More to come...
Tuesday, August 16, 2024
See You in September
I'm off to Mexico to do some diving and, I hope, see some of these. I'll check in from time to time, but really back closer to Labor Day. Be well, everyone. And stay safe. It's a crazy world out there these days.
You Know You're in Trouble When...
Here's a true story told to me by an executive friend at a Fortune 500 company. Probably a Fortune 100 company, I think.
The company, which shall remain nameless, is planning an event in Massachusetts, and organizers were discussing speakers to invite to address the attendees. Larry Summers' name came up, and though there was some question about whether he'd be too controversial, still it was thought that he would certainly make an interesting speaker.
So the idea was circulated to a larger audience within the company, including the CEO. And word came back from the top to nix the plan: Having Larry Summers speak at a company function "would not reflect well" on the company....
The company, which shall remain nameless, is planning an event in Massachusetts, and organizers were discussing speakers to invite to address the attendees. Larry Summers' name came up, and though there was some question about whether he'd be too controversial, still it was thought that he would certainly make an interesting speaker.
So the idea was circulated to a larger audience within the company, including the CEO. And word came back from the top to nix the plan: Having Larry Summers speak at a company function "would not reflect well" on the company....
Monday, August 15, 2024
Are the Bush Girls AWOL?
Thanks in large part to Cindy Sheehan, people are starting to raise the issue of why Jenna and Barbara Bush aren't serving in the military. It's a tough question, but I think it's a fair one. The President of the United States is calling on American young people to volunteer to go to war, but his own daughters, who are certainly of the appropriate age, are better known for their drunken nightclub escapades than for any acts of patriotism.
There's a precedent for prodding Bush on this question. Back in 1993, when Bill and Hillary Clinton moved to Washington, they decided to enroll Chelsea in a private, rather than public, school. Their choice; whatever. But the press asked the Clintons about that decision, and they had to defend it—publicly. (And unlike the Bush daughters now, Chelsea was a minor.)
It's pretty simple, really. The military doesn't have enough soldiers; the president believes that this is a good and right war; he has two daughters who could enlist in the military, but haven't. This doesn't add up. So here's a question I think a White House reporter should ask the president: "President Bush, if your own two daughters won't enlist, how can you expect anyone else's children to join the military?"
There's a precedent for prodding Bush on this question. Back in 1993, when Bill and Hillary Clinton moved to Washington, they decided to enroll Chelsea in a private, rather than public, school. Their choice; whatever. But the press asked the Clintons about that decision, and they had to defend it—publicly. (And unlike the Bush daughters now, Chelsea was a minor.)
It's pretty simple, really. The military doesn't have enough soldiers; the president believes that this is a good and right war; he has two daughters who could enlist in the military, but haven't. This doesn't add up. So here's a question I think a White House reporter should ask the president: "President Bush, if your own two daughters won't enlist, how can you expect anyone else's children to join the military?"
Sunday, August 14, 2024
The War Is Over?
That, at least, is the argument made by Frank Rich in today's Times. Whatever the president may be saying, Rich argues, "the country has already made the decision for Mr. Bush. We're outta there."
I think Rich may be right: there does seem to be something fundamental that's transpired in the past week or so. Maybe it's the combination of increased mortality in Iraq (all those Ohio deaths); Cindy Sheehan's meta-protest; and a Pentagon general talking about a schedule for troop withdrawal.
And as I've noted before, Bush's rhetoric about the rationale for the war seems increasingly...dumb. And I don't use that word glibly. What I mean is that when he says we're in Iraq because it's a locus (not a word he'd use) of terrorism, we all know that it is such only because we invaded the country, and it wasn't before. When he says that we're fighting the terrorists over there so that we don't have to confront them here, in our "homeland"—God, I hate that word, what was wrong with "country"?—the hollowness of the argument is so obvious, it's almost embarrassing. Hence: dumb. Bush is trying to convince us of things that are patently untrue, and while it may have worked for some time, the rote repetition of these lines is making the president look out of touch and stupid.
This war, which never had a deep well of public support anyway, is fast losing whatever support it did have.
I recognize that this represents a political opportunity for Democrats and opponents of the war. Fair enough. But before progressives jump completely aboard the Cindy Sheehan bandwagon, we need to remember something Bill Clinton pointed out on CNN the other day: Whatever the reason for us going into Iraq, we are there now, and it's in our interest to have a successful outcome there. Democrats can't just sit back and enjoy the president's problems...they need to come up with some solutions. And just saying what a hero Cindy Sheehan is isn't enough.
I think Rich may be right: there does seem to be something fundamental that's transpired in the past week or so. Maybe it's the combination of increased mortality in Iraq (all those Ohio deaths); Cindy Sheehan's meta-protest; and a Pentagon general talking about a schedule for troop withdrawal.
And as I've noted before, Bush's rhetoric about the rationale for the war seems increasingly...dumb. And I don't use that word glibly. What I mean is that when he says we're in Iraq because it's a locus (not a word he'd use) of terrorism, we all know that it is such only because we invaded the country, and it wasn't before. When he says that we're fighting the terrorists over there so that we don't have to confront them here, in our "homeland"—God, I hate that word, what was wrong with "country"?—the hollowness of the argument is so obvious, it's almost embarrassing. Hence: dumb. Bush is trying to convince us of things that are patently untrue, and while it may have worked for some time, the rote repetition of these lines is making the president look out of touch and stupid.
This war, which never had a deep well of public support anyway, is fast losing whatever support it did have.
I recognize that this represents a political opportunity for Democrats and opponents of the war. Fair enough. But before progressives jump completely aboard the Cindy Sheehan bandwagon, we need to remember something Bill Clinton pointed out on CNN the other day: Whatever the reason for us going into Iraq, we are there now, and it's in our interest to have a successful outcome there. Democrats can't just sit back and enjoy the president's problems...they need to come up with some solutions. And just saying what a hero Cindy Sheehan is isn't enough.
Wednesday, August 10, 2024
Back in Woods Hole...
It's week two of research up here, and once again my Internet access is pretty limited, so my blogging will be as well. But I figure that August is a slow month for all of you as well, and you're probably on the beach or out hiking, rather than sitting in front of your computer blog-reading... At least, I hope you are!
Just wait till after Labor Day, when things will really start hopping.
Just wait till after Labor Day, when things will really start hopping.
Monday, August 08, 2024
Brainiacs
Brain scientist Simon Baron-Cohen has a fascinating op-ed in today's Times, playing off Larry Summers' women-in-science brouahaha and positing a cause for autism. I'm a little tired to go into it, but this one is well worth-reading—and parsing for subtexts.
Goodbye, Old Friends
I didn't know them, but it feels as if they were old friends....
Today marks the sad passing of ABC News anchor Peter Jennings. I won't add to the already effusive praise of Jennings, except to say that he seems to have lived with class and dignity, all the way until the end. His death really does signify a passing of an era, and so in some curious way, it is doubly affecting.
Less noticed is the death of Cuban musician Ibrahim Ferrer, known as one of the members of the Buena Vista Social Club. In 1940, a 13-year-old orphan, Ferrer joined a band, and proceeded to make beautiful music for the next seven decades. He was temporarily retired, living on a pension and shining shoes to make extra money, when the American musician and musical anthropologist Ry Cooder rediscovered him and coaxed him back into playing. For this, we should all be grateful to Cooder. He gave an old man reason to sing again...and he brought Ferrer's music to the world outside Cuba. Not a bad end to a remarkable life.
Today marks the sad passing of ABC News anchor Peter Jennings. I won't add to the already effusive praise of Jennings, except to say that he seems to have lived with class and dignity, all the way until the end. His death really does signify a passing of an era, and so in some curious way, it is doubly affecting.
Less noticed is the death of Cuban musician Ibrahim Ferrer, known as one of the members of the Buena Vista Social Club. In 1940, a 13-year-old orphan, Ferrer joined a band, and proceeded to make beautiful music for the next seven decades. He was temporarily retired, living on a pension and shining shoes to make extra money, when the American musician and musical anthropologist Ry Cooder rediscovered him and coaxed him back into playing. For this, we should all be grateful to Cooder. He gave an old man reason to sing again...and he brought Ferrer's music to the world outside Cuba. Not a bad end to a remarkable life.
Arianna on the Case
Over at HuffPo, Arianna Huffington reports that the Times has assigned reporter Doug Jehl—quite a good reporter, by the way—to investigate the role of Judith Miller, the paper's currently jailed reporter, in the Valerie Plame case. That doesn't bode well for Miller. But if Arianna's right, kudos to the Times for having the guts to investigate its own reporter, who has become a major news story in her own right.
I've defended Miller in the past, arguing that despite her erroneous war reporting, we should respect her principled stand on sourcing (ostensibly the reason she's in jail now).
But more and more, it appears that Miller is keeping quiet because her own role in this matter was not to report a story, but to spread dirt on Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, who had attacked the administration's efforts to build support for a war; Miller approved of those efforts.
My defense of Judith Miller, I'm sorry to say, is getting harder to sustain.
I've defended Miller in the past, arguing that despite her erroneous war reporting, we should respect her principled stand on sourcing (ostensibly the reason she's in jail now).
But more and more, it appears that Miller is keeping quiet because her own role in this matter was not to report a story, but to spread dirt on Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, who had attacked the administration's efforts to build support for a war; Miller approved of those efforts.
My defense of Judith Miller, I'm sorry to say, is getting harder to sustain.
Woe is the Yankees
(Woe are the Yankees?)
Randy Johnson is hurt...Bernie Williams is hurt...Carl Pavano's probably out for the season...Jared Wright is hurt...Kevin Brown is hurt...Chien Mien Wang is hurt...Ruben Sierra is hurt....
There are five—count 'em, five—pitchers on that list. Who would have thought that in August the Yankees would be limping along with a starting rotation of Mike Mussina, Randy Johnson (maybe), Al Leiter, Aaron Small, and...Hideo Nomo? Yikes. The latter three have all pitched in the minor leagues this season....
Just so you know, in case the Yankees don't make the playoffs, I am laying the groundwork to claim a moral victory.
Randy Johnson is hurt...Bernie Williams is hurt...Carl Pavano's probably out for the season...Jared Wright is hurt...Kevin Brown is hurt...Chien Mien Wang is hurt...Ruben Sierra is hurt....
There are five—count 'em, five—pitchers on that list. Who would have thought that in August the Yankees would be limping along with a starting rotation of Mike Mussina, Randy Johnson (maybe), Al Leiter, Aaron Small, and...Hideo Nomo? Yikes. The latter three have all pitched in the minor leagues this season....
Just so you know, in case the Yankees don't make the playoffs, I am laying the groundwork to claim a moral victory.
Apparently, It Happens
Marvin Weitzman, the Harvard economics professor arrested for stealing manure from a local farm, has settled his case for $600 in damages and a $300 donation to the local Boy Scout troop.
The Crimson summarizes: "On April 1—Weitzman’s birthday—the tenured professor was detained while trying to take manure from the Lane farm. In that incident, Weitzman reportedly tried to offer $20, and then $40, for the truckload of manure, but was not allowed to leave the property until police arrived on the scene. The malicious destruction of property charge came from damage Weitzman’s tires left on the farm."
Now he's paying restitution to "98-year-old Charles L. 'Charlie' Lane, Sr."
I'm just trying to picture how exactly Charlie Lane, Sr., kept Weitzman from leaving until police arrived.... That must have been a bit surreal, don't you think?
A small suggestion for the Harvard economics department: How about a mandatory course on ethics? For the professors, of course....
The Crimson summarizes: "On April 1—Weitzman’s birthday—the tenured professor was detained while trying to take manure from the Lane farm. In that incident, Weitzman reportedly tried to offer $20, and then $40, for the truckload of manure, but was not allowed to leave the property until police arrived on the scene. The malicious destruction of property charge came from damage Weitzman’s tires left on the farm."
Now he's paying restitution to "98-year-old Charles L. 'Charlie' Lane, Sr."
I'm just trying to picture how exactly Charlie Lane, Sr., kept Weitzman from leaving until police arrived.... That must have been a bit surreal, don't you think?
A small suggestion for the Harvard economics department: How about a mandatory course on ethics? For the professors, of course....
Sunday, August 07, 2024
The NY Times' Donation Scam
For those of you who take the New York Times...
Ever had to temporarily suspend your delivery because of, say, vacation? The Times gives you an option to donate your papers to "educational institutions" rather than just getting a credit on your bill. The way the Times' phone-system is set up, it's easy to do this unintentionally.
This option has always struck me as a scam only slightly inferior to "Lather. Rinse. Repeat."
Think about it. You're still paying for the papers, of course. So the Times not only makes money from your purchase, but also gets a tax write-off for all the papers it "donates." I'll bet that a) for tax purposes, the Times values those donated papers at a price greater than you pay for home delivery, and b) the number of donated papers actually adds up to a pretty substantial tax credit.
I wonder where all those donated papers really go, anyway, and if the recipients even read them....
Anyone?
Ever had to temporarily suspend your delivery because of, say, vacation? The Times gives you an option to donate your papers to "educational institutions" rather than just getting a credit on your bill. The way the Times' phone-system is set up, it's easy to do this unintentionally.
This option has always struck me as a scam only slightly inferior to "Lather. Rinse. Repeat."
Think about it. You're still paying for the papers, of course. So the Times not only makes money from your purchase, but also gets a tax write-off for all the papers it "donates." I'll bet that a) for tax purposes, the Times values those donated papers at a price greater than you pay for home delivery, and b) the number of donated papers actually adds up to a pretty substantial tax credit.
I wonder where all those donated papers really go, anyway, and if the recipients even read them....
Anyone?
Summers In a Tight Spot
On his always thought-provoking blog, Economic Principals, David Warsh adds his insights to the Andrei Shleifer scandal. Warsh has been following this story closely for years, and he makes a number of valuable points.
Such as:
—more bad news will come for Harvard in the form of journalist/author David McClintock, who's working on a feature magazine story about the HIID scandal
—Warsh nicely sums up Shleifer's malfeasance: "Judge Woodlock found that, once installed by the US as its adviser to Russian president Boris Yeltsin, Shleifer invited his deputy Hay to invest with him in Russian oil stocks despite contract prohibitions against such investments, then gradually upped the ante.
"Their illicit activities culminated in an attempt (at a regulatory agency they advised) to vault to the head of the licensing queue a company formed by Shleifer's wife and Hay's girlfriend to offer the first Russian mutual funds. That was the caper which scandalized Harvard's Moscow office. USAID investigated and swiftly shut the project down."
—While the Harvard case is a huge story in Russia, it's gotten almost no play here. The NYT and the Washington Post story both ran only an AP piece on the scandal. (RB: This is lousy editorial judgment.) Only the Journal covered the story well. (RB: So irrelevant is the Globe, Warsh doesn't even mention it.)
—Warsh also parses the connections between Shleifer and Larry Summers, making clear that Summers' role in this matter is more complicated than just a matter of friendship. [Italics mine.]
"A somewhat more intriguing figure than Shleifer in the Russia Project is economist Lawrence Summers, Shleifer's mentor and old friend, who taught him as an undergraduate; sent him to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to train; took him to Lithuania to practice country-doctoring; brought him back from the University of Chicago to teach at Harvard; helped put him in the Russia job; oversaw, as an increasingly senior Treasury Department official, Shleifer's efforts in Moscow; and, once he returned to Harvard as president, defended his protégé.
"Friendship explains much of Summers' role. A combination of patriotism, arrogance, marital hard times and plain bad judgment explains the rest. The Harvard president is in a world of woe. The likelihood that justice will be meted out to him on any separable basis is not great. The Bad-News Train is bearing down on Larry Summers at 40 miles per hour."
Warsh sums up by wondering why Harvard didn't just come clean in the first place—why the university decided to stand by a figure who, even then, seemed pretty clearly to have ripped off the US government in his desire to enrich himself.
He writes: "Why not acknowledge obvious wrongdoing? Why prefer intelligence to integrity? In the autumn, the venue of the Shleifer matter will shift to the inner councils of the Harvard faculty and to the economics profession. These are the questions they'll be asking then."
That second question—why prefer intelligence to integrity?—goes to the heart of much that is wrong with current Harvard. After all, the fetishization of intelligence over character was the primary, if unspoken, rationale for choosing Larry Summers as president. These hyper-smart chickens are coming home to roost.
Such as:
—more bad news will come for Harvard in the form of journalist/author David McClintock, who's working on a feature magazine story about the HIID scandal
—Warsh nicely sums up Shleifer's malfeasance: "Judge Woodlock found that, once installed by the US as its adviser to Russian president Boris Yeltsin, Shleifer invited his deputy Hay to invest with him in Russian oil stocks despite contract prohibitions against such investments, then gradually upped the ante.
"Their illicit activities culminated in an attempt (at a regulatory agency they advised) to vault to the head of the licensing queue a company formed by Shleifer's wife and Hay's girlfriend to offer the first Russian mutual funds. That was the caper which scandalized Harvard's Moscow office. USAID investigated and swiftly shut the project down."
—While the Harvard case is a huge story in Russia, it's gotten almost no play here. The NYT and the Washington Post story both ran only an AP piece on the scandal. (RB: This is lousy editorial judgment.) Only the Journal covered the story well. (RB: So irrelevant is the Globe, Warsh doesn't even mention it.)
—Warsh also parses the connections between Shleifer and Larry Summers, making clear that Summers' role in this matter is more complicated than just a matter of friendship. [Italics mine.]
"A somewhat more intriguing figure than Shleifer in the Russia Project is economist Lawrence Summers, Shleifer's mentor and old friend, who taught him as an undergraduate; sent him to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to train; took him to Lithuania to practice country-doctoring; brought him back from the University of Chicago to teach at Harvard; helped put him in the Russia job; oversaw, as an increasingly senior Treasury Department official, Shleifer's efforts in Moscow; and, once he returned to Harvard as president, defended his protégé.
"Friendship explains much of Summers' role. A combination of patriotism, arrogance, marital hard times and plain bad judgment explains the rest. The Harvard president is in a world of woe. The likelihood that justice will be meted out to him on any separable basis is not great. The Bad-News Train is bearing down on Larry Summers at 40 miles per hour."
Warsh sums up by wondering why Harvard didn't just come clean in the first place—why the university decided to stand by a figure who, even then, seemed pretty clearly to have ripped off the US government in his desire to enrich himself.
He writes: "Why not acknowledge obvious wrongdoing? Why prefer intelligence to integrity? In the autumn, the venue of the Shleifer matter will shift to the inner councils of the Harvard faculty and to the economics profession. These are the questions they'll be asking then."
That second question—why prefer intelligence to integrity?—goes to the heart of much that is wrong with current Harvard. After all, the fetishization of intelligence over character was the primary, if unspoken, rationale for choosing Larry Summers as president. These hyper-smart chickens are coming home to roost.
Jason Giambi, MVP
Back in May, I wrote a post called "Jason Giambi Gets a Hit," in which I talked about the New York Yankee's struggle to come back from steroid use and illness—a tumor on the pituitary gland. Giambi was having a terrible season at that point. He looked helpless at the plate, like he was battling not just pitchers and fans, but also his own internal demons. And the New York media was vilifying him; "Boot the Bum," said the ever-civil New York Post.
But I always liked Giambi, and I thought he deserved some credit for being the only man in baseball to admit that he used steroids.
"Jason Giambi is trying to make up for his mistakes, and I, for one, am pulling for him," I wrote. "Wouldn't we all feel better if Jason Giambi succeeded?"
Well, as today's New York Times chronicles, Giambi has succeeded. Last month he hit 14 home runs, tying Mickey Mantle for the most home runs ever hit by a Yankee in a single month. In a nice piece of baseball poetry, Mantle is Giambi's hero; Giambi wears the number 25 because it adds up to Mantle's seven.
But home runs are over-rated, in my opinion. Two seconds of excitement followed by anti-climax. What's really cool about Giambi is his league-leading on-base percentage of .457. Giambi doesn't swing at bad pitches, and his finesse at the plate adds more drama and tension to a typical at-bat than a random hope for a long ball.
Other steroid users around the league are not faring so well. Barry Bonds is sulking his way out of baseball. Rafael Palmeiro is almost certainly a perjurer. Sammy Sosa is the incredible shrinking power hitter.
But Jason Giambi has scratched and clawed his way back to the top by working hard and refusing to succumb to the vicious criticism he's received. No matter how he and the Yankees finish this year, he's shown baseball a road back from the scandal of steroids. Other players will have better statistics, but no one will have done more for the sport. No story this year is more human or more inspiring. Jason Giambi should be the American League's most valuable player.
Saturday, August 06, 2024
Rolling Stones and Whores
The Rolling Stones catalogue has just been released on iTunes, and a quick perusal of it makes a few things obvious.
1) They used to be really good.
2) They suck now. Can anyone name a song off, say, the past six records they've made?
3) It's very likely that they've put out more greatest hits albums than they've put out albums of new material.
4) They are corporate whores.
Actually, I don't mention number four because of iTunes, but because of the excruciatingly bad Ameriquest ads all over television at the moment. They feature a guy in a suit who's supposed to be in the front rows of a Stones concert—and boy, there's a telling image—although I think the crowd is actually superimposed on footage of the Stones playing. He's talking about how Ameriquest, which is a mortgage company, is sponsoring the new Rolling Stones tour.
This is such a bummer for so many reasons....
I guess there's a certain appropriateness to the fact that a rock and roll tour by a group of sexagenarians is being sponsored by a mortgage company. But for the consumer, what exactly does sponsorship mean? Other than a barrage of poorly-produced ads?
The Rolling Stones were, if memory serves, the first band ever to have a tour sponsored. Back in 1981, Jovan Musk (also high on the list of deeply uncool sponsors) paid the band $500,000 to underwrite the tour. Since then, Budweiser and Sprint have paid significantly more.
The band originally explained this sell-out as a way of keeping ticket prices down, but that's a rationale they don't even try to throw against the wall anymore, because they know it won't stick. Every time they hit the road, the Stones charge the highest ticket prices in the world of music—face value for Stones tickets is often in the hundreds of dollars.
If these guys have managed their money well, they must all be worth in the nine figures. And yet, they constantly debase their reputation (sponsorship, playing corporate gigs and birthday parties, licensing their songs) in their lust for lucre. How much money do you need to be happy? How much is enough?
The idea that rock 'n roll is a pure art form, free of commercial corruption, has of course never been true. But there are degrees. The Rolling Stones make me respect even more artists like Bruce Springsteen, Neil Young and Tom Petty, who a) don't accept sponsorship and would never let their music appear in ads, and b) manage to keep their ticket prices down nonetheless.
I have this naive idea that greed is wrong (which is one reason I can't watch "The Apprentice"). It often makes me feel alienated from mainstream American culture. But it also makes me really appreciate people in high places who feel the same way.
Next on the musical whore list: Sheryl Crow.
1) They used to be really good.
2) They suck now. Can anyone name a song off, say, the past six records they've made?
3) It's very likely that they've put out more greatest hits albums than they've put out albums of new material.
4) They are corporate whores.
Actually, I don't mention number four because of iTunes, but because of the excruciatingly bad Ameriquest ads all over television at the moment. They feature a guy in a suit who's supposed to be in the front rows of a Stones concert—and boy, there's a telling image—although I think the crowd is actually superimposed on footage of the Stones playing. He's talking about how Ameriquest, which is a mortgage company, is sponsoring the new Rolling Stones tour.
This is such a bummer for so many reasons....
I guess there's a certain appropriateness to the fact that a rock and roll tour by a group of sexagenarians is being sponsored by a mortgage company. But for the consumer, what exactly does sponsorship mean? Other than a barrage of poorly-produced ads?
The Rolling Stones were, if memory serves, the first band ever to have a tour sponsored. Back in 1981, Jovan Musk (also high on the list of deeply uncool sponsors) paid the band $500,000 to underwrite the tour. Since then, Budweiser and Sprint have paid significantly more.
The band originally explained this sell-out as a way of keeping ticket prices down, but that's a rationale they don't even try to throw against the wall anymore, because they know it won't stick. Every time they hit the road, the Stones charge the highest ticket prices in the world of music—face value for Stones tickets is often in the hundreds of dollars.
If these guys have managed their money well, they must all be worth in the nine figures. And yet, they constantly debase their reputation (sponsorship, playing corporate gigs and birthday parties, licensing their songs) in their lust for lucre. How much money do you need to be happy? How much is enough?
The idea that rock 'n roll is a pure art form, free of commercial corruption, has of course never been true. But there are degrees. The Rolling Stones make me respect even more artists like Bruce Springsteen, Neil Young and Tom Petty, who a) don't accept sponsorship and would never let their music appear in ads, and b) manage to keep their ticket prices down nonetheless.
I have this naive idea that greed is wrong (which is one reason I can't watch "The Apprentice"). It often makes me feel alienated from mainstream American culture. But it also makes me really appreciate people in high places who feel the same way.
Next on the musical whore list: Sheryl Crow.
Take Harvard's Money...And Run
The Times weighs in with a piece on Harvard's difficulty replacing Jack Meyer, the brilliant money manager who's overseen the truly remarkable rise in the university's portfolio—I'm guessing it's hit the $25 billion mark by now. The Times reports that, in the decade ending in 2004, Harvard had an average annual return of 15.9%. Wow.
No one wants the job, the Times suggests, because a) it's high-profile, and money managers don't like to be in the spotlight (RB: that's far from universal, IMHO), and b) while they can make, say, $30 million a year at Harvard, if they ran a hedge fund, they might make something more like $250 million annually.
Lots of thoughts about this.
First, and most important, the Times completely ignores another, oft-whispered reason for Meyer's departure and the reluctance of anyone else to take the job: the role that Summers may have played in Meyer's decision to resign.
I've heard from multiple sources in the Harvard world and the financial community that Meyers had grown frustrated with Summers' desire to have direct involvement in the Harvard Management Company, the investment firm Meyers ran to manage Harvard's money—even to the point of suggesting specific investment strategies and choices. That, more than the controversy over his staff salaries, may be the reason Meyers quit.
It may also be the reason no one else wants the job.
The Times inadvertently nibbles around the edges of this by reporting that the original search team for a Meyers replacement consisted of Summers, brother-in-arms Robert Rubin, and University treasurer James Rothenburg. (Both Rubin and Rothenburg are Summers' appointees to the Corporation.) That trio failed to find anyone, but its existence alone suggests that Summers must have wanted someone he could keep close, someone he could control. The fact that it failed might also suggest that those interviewed by the threesome were wary of Summers' role.
(The search is now being undertaken by a search committee. One wonders at what point Summers, Rubin and Rothenberg realized that their failure to hire someone was going to make them look silly.)
Because, truth be told, the salary differential between Harvard and hedge funds can't alone explain the fact that Harvard hasn't found anyone in the eight months it's been looking. Surely there must be a money manager somewhere who thinks that $25 million a year is enough; surely there must be a Harvard alum somewhere who believes that taking a money hit from the offensive to the insane is worth it, to serve the old alma mater. Perhaps it's not the money that matters, but the boss.
I know that some reporters have tried to get at the real story of Meyer's exit, but as long as Meyer won't talk, it's a tough nut to crack. Still, it's a huge and important story. Harvard can survive tension between the president and his faculty. But it will not stand for a president who may have driven out a money manager with an unprecedented track record. Because in the end, the key to Harvard's success, its titanic image, its aura of fortress-like impregnability, is money.
One wonders, too, how those alumni donations are going...wasn't that capital campaign supposed to start by now? Or has it been postponed again?
It would be interesting for someone at some point to create a chart of the problems that Summers was supposed to have solved...versus those he has created.
No one wants the job, the Times suggests, because a) it's high-profile, and money managers don't like to be in the spotlight (RB: that's far from universal, IMHO), and b) while they can make, say, $30 million a year at Harvard, if they ran a hedge fund, they might make something more like $250 million annually.
Lots of thoughts about this.
First, and most important, the Times completely ignores another, oft-whispered reason for Meyer's departure and the reluctance of anyone else to take the job: the role that Summers may have played in Meyer's decision to resign.
I've heard from multiple sources in the Harvard world and the financial community that Meyers had grown frustrated with Summers' desire to have direct involvement in the Harvard Management Company, the investment firm Meyers ran to manage Harvard's money—even to the point of suggesting specific investment strategies and choices. That, more than the controversy over his staff salaries, may be the reason Meyers quit.
It may also be the reason no one else wants the job.
The Times inadvertently nibbles around the edges of this by reporting that the original search team for a Meyers replacement consisted of Summers, brother-in-arms Robert Rubin, and University treasurer James Rothenburg. (Both Rubin and Rothenburg are Summers' appointees to the Corporation.) That trio failed to find anyone, but its existence alone suggests that Summers must have wanted someone he could keep close, someone he could control. The fact that it failed might also suggest that those interviewed by the threesome were wary of Summers' role.
(The search is now being undertaken by a search committee. One wonders at what point Summers, Rubin and Rothenberg realized that their failure to hire someone was going to make them look silly.)
Because, truth be told, the salary differential between Harvard and hedge funds can't alone explain the fact that Harvard hasn't found anyone in the eight months it's been looking. Surely there must be a money manager somewhere who thinks that $25 million a year is enough; surely there must be a Harvard alum somewhere who believes that taking a money hit from the offensive to the insane is worth it, to serve the old alma mater. Perhaps it's not the money that matters, but the boss.
I know that some reporters have tried to get at the real story of Meyer's exit, but as long as Meyer won't talk, it's a tough nut to crack. Still, it's a huge and important story. Harvard can survive tension between the president and his faculty. But it will not stand for a president who may have driven out a money manager with an unprecedented track record. Because in the end, the key to Harvard's success, its titanic image, its aura of fortress-like impregnability, is money.
One wonders, too, how those alumni donations are going...wasn't that capital campaign supposed to start by now? Or has it been postponed again?
It would be interesting for someone at some point to create a chart of the problems that Summers was supposed to have solved...versus those he has created.
A Week in Woods Hole
I'm back from five days spent in bucolic Woods Hole, on the southern tip of Cape Cod; I was doing some research at the Marine Biological Laboratories there. What a nice bunch of people! They allowed me to sit in on a class, showed me around the campus, and just generally welcomed me in every way they could. The way that a place of higher learning ought to be...
Woods Hole is a lovely town. It hosts two centers for marine biological study, the MBL and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (the acronym is pronounced "hooey," I'm told). Main Street has a few restaurants, a t-shirt shop, a market, a community center, and two coffee shops. I got used to getting my coffee and popover in the morning at Pie in the Sky; there are few greater pleasures than a summer morning in a seaport town, drinking coffee and reading the paper outside in the salt air.
There was just one problem: Woods Hole is part and parcel of Red Sox nation. And in this sense, a visit there felt like being a democrat in North Korea, like you're a lone martyr, fighting the good fight against some inbred totalitarian ideology. I saw a little girl wearing a handmade t-shirt that said on the front, "I root for two teams..." On the back, it continued, "...the Red Sox, and anyone playing the Yankees!" Poor love. I considered calling social services, but decided she was probably too far gone to be helped.
The t-shirt store had one popular item, a shirt that showed the Yankees logo being squeezed. The caption read "Chokees!", a reference to the 2004 playoff tragedy. I saw several lost souls wearing this very same item.
Huh.
I don't quite understand that line of attack. Because if the Yankees choked, then the Red Sox comeback wasn't really so glorious. It wasn't that they were heroic; it's that the Yankees choked.
Now, as a Yankees fan, I hate to give the Sox credit, but I don't think the Yankees choked at all. Every game between the two teams last season was a battle, and whoever won, it always seemed it could just as easily have gone the other way. So even when the Yankees were up 3-o in the championship series, no one in New York was counting the Sox out, that's for sure. The Sox won because—gulp—they were the better team last year, and they deserved it.
Also, because Kevin Brown is one of the world's crummiest pitchers.
Anyway, my point is, Sox fans can't have it both ways: They can't talk about how amazing their team was, and in the same breath delight in the Yankees' "choke."
Oh, and by the way? The Sox lost to the Twins, 12-0, last night.
Woods Hole is a lovely town. It hosts two centers for marine biological study, the MBL and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (the acronym is pronounced "hooey," I'm told). Main Street has a few restaurants, a t-shirt shop, a market, a community center, and two coffee shops. I got used to getting my coffee and popover in the morning at Pie in the Sky; there are few greater pleasures than a summer morning in a seaport town, drinking coffee and reading the paper outside in the salt air.
There was just one problem: Woods Hole is part and parcel of Red Sox nation. And in this sense, a visit there felt like being a democrat in North Korea, like you're a lone martyr, fighting the good fight against some inbred totalitarian ideology. I saw a little girl wearing a handmade t-shirt that said on the front, "I root for two teams..." On the back, it continued, "...the Red Sox, and anyone playing the Yankees!" Poor love. I considered calling social services, but decided she was probably too far gone to be helped.
The t-shirt store had one popular item, a shirt that showed the Yankees logo being squeezed. The caption read "Chokees!", a reference to the 2004 playoff tragedy. I saw several lost souls wearing this very same item.
Huh.
I don't quite understand that line of attack. Because if the Yankees choked, then the Red Sox comeback wasn't really so glorious. It wasn't that they were heroic; it's that the Yankees choked.
Now, as a Yankees fan, I hate to give the Sox credit, but I don't think the Yankees choked at all. Every game between the two teams last season was a battle, and whoever won, it always seemed it could just as easily have gone the other way. So even when the Yankees were up 3-o in the championship series, no one in New York was counting the Sox out, that's for sure. The Sox won because—gulp—they were the better team last year, and they deserved it.
Also, because Kevin Brown is one of the world's crummiest pitchers.
Anyway, my point is, Sox fans can't have it both ways: They can't talk about how amazing their team was, and in the same breath delight in the Yankees' "choke."
Oh, and by the way? The Sox lost to the Twins, 12-0, last night.
Thursday, August 04, 2024
Over There, Week 2
The second episode of "Over There" still suffered from some Hollywood flaws, such as the torture sequence at the beginnng—it was a dream, right?— but I have to say, I found much of it gripping. The scenes involving the soldiers manning a roadblock were really unsettling; you certainly got the feeling of how easy it would be to shoot an innocent civilian, and how easily it would be to get killed by someone who looked like an innocent civilian.
I know the ratings for Week One of "Over There" were strong; I don't know what last night's were, but I hope they held up. This may be an imperfect depiction of war, but it's better than what the network news is showing—when they show anything at all.
I know the ratings for Week One of "Over There" were strong; I don't know what last night's were, but I hope they held up. This may be an imperfect depiction of war, but it's better than what the network news is showing—when they show anything at all.
Bush: Same Old, Same Old
I just saw the president on CNN say something like, "We are fighting and beating the terrorists in Iraq so that we don't have to confront them here at home."
Does anyone still believe this nonsense? If we're getting safer at home, why are people getting searched on the subway in New York? Why does Congress want to make Washington air space permanently off-limits?
The truth is, we are creating new terrorists in Iraq, it's very unclear whether we're winning there, and our country feels less safe now than it did in 2002, for example.
Bush added that "we will stay on the offense against these people."
Huh.
Does anyone else feel that we're not exactly taking the offensive, whether in Iraq or at home?
These lines are essentially what Bush has been saying for the past five years. I wonder if the general public isn't finally wising up to the fact that this is, and has always been, pablum. There may be serious, legitimate rationales for the war in Iraq. But Bush isn't making them.
Does anyone still believe this nonsense? If we're getting safer at home, why are people getting searched on the subway in New York? Why does Congress want to make Washington air space permanently off-limits?
The truth is, we are creating new terrorists in Iraq, it's very unclear whether we're winning there, and our country feels less safe now than it did in 2002, for example.
Bush added that "we will stay on the offense against these people."
Huh.
Does anyone else feel that we're not exactly taking the offensive, whether in Iraq or at home?
These lines are essentially what Bush has been saying for the past five years. I wonder if the general public isn't finally wising up to the fact that this is, and has always been, pablum. There may be serious, legitimate rationales for the war in Iraq. But Bush isn't making them.
Shleifer: I Would Have Won
The New York Times has a short piece on Harvard's settlement of the HIID matter. Short, but it does provide more information than the Harvard Gazette, including the fact that protagonist Andrei Shleifer will have to pay $2 million to the government.
According to the Times, "Mr. Shleifer said in a statement that he believed he would have prevailed had the case gone to trial, but that legal fees would have exceeded the amount he was paying the government."
Huh.
If I could afford it—and Shleifer, who also has a private investment firm on the side (as does his wife), can—and I really believed I would prevail, I'd go to court. Apparently money means more to Shleifer than becoming convicted of a civil crime.
Which, come to think of it, might explain why Shleifer is convicted.
According to the Times, "Mr. Shleifer said in a statement that he believed he would have prevailed had the case gone to trial, but that legal fees would have exceeded the amount he was paying the government."
Huh.
If I could afford it—and Shleifer, who also has a private investment firm on the side (as does his wife), can—and I really believed I would prevail, I'd go to court. Apparently money means more to Shleifer than becoming convicted of a civil crime.
Which, come to think of it, might explain why Shleifer is convicted.
A Call for Resignation
The Miami Herald's editorial page says that Conrad Harper's principled departure from the Harvard Corporation shows the importance of having minorities involved at the highest levels of higher education, and suggests that Larry Summers should resign.
Wednesday, August 03, 2024
De-Padding His Resume
If you have some time to spare, try finding any mention of the Harvard Institute for International Development on Andres Shleifer's resume.
Guess what? You won't!
Oh sure, there's an item for "Advisor, Government of Russia, 1991 to 1997." Followed by about ten pages of awards and publications. But nothing for HIID...
Guess what? You won't!
Oh sure, there's an item for "Advisor, Government of Russia, 1991 to 1997." Followed by about ten pages of awards and publications. But nothing for HIID...
The $26.5 Million Professor
Harvard has settled with the Department of Justice in the Harvard Institute for International Development fraud case. Under the terms of the settlement, Harvard will pay $26.5 million to the federal government. And that raises more questions about the fate of Harvard economist, and close friend of Larry Summers, Andres Shleifer.
Some background. In 1992, HIID won a $50-million contract from USAID to consult on Russia's transition from communism to capitalism. At the time, HIID—which no longer exists—was run by Shleifer. But it all came crashing down when the government charged Shleifer with insider trading, allegedly investing in companies he was directing US dollars toward. In 2000, the government filed a civil lawsuit against Harvard, charging fraud.
The settlement appears to be a victory for both sides. The government gets some money and some vindication; Harvard gets rid of a lawsuit that has dragged on for years, brought reams of bad publicity—it would bring more if it weren't so darn complicated—and could, if they'd lost a trial, have cost the university considerably more than $26.5 million.
So now comes the interesting part: What will Larry Summers do with Andres Shleifer? Though Shleifer is mysteriously on leave for the upcoming school year, he still has tenure at Harvard. He is officially the Whipple V. N. Jones professor of economics.
On the one hand, Shleifer has just cost the university almost $27 million. (Perhaps more, if you include legal fees.) On the other hand, he's one of Summers' close friends at Harvard. And though Summers was said to have recused himself, it's widely believed that he remains a staunch supporter of his friend.
Let's pose a hypothetical, to make this even more interesting: What would Summers do if the professor who cost the university that much money were African-American and taught African-American Studies? Or a female sociologist? Or an African-American anthropologist?
I think the answer is pretty clear; those people would no longer be teaching at Harvard. More: Summers would make an example of them.
At this point, Summers may have no choice but to bid farewell to Shleifer. Certainly the language of the Harvard Gazette story on the matter (see link above) doesn't bode well for Shleifer.
"We welcome having this matter behind us," Robert W. Iuliano, the University's vice president and general counsel, told the Gazette. "Over the course of the litigation, the Court has affirmed our position that the University engaged in no institutional wrongdoing. "
Note that phrase, "no institutional wrongdoing."
A couple paragraphs down, the Gazette adds this: "The University was found liable only for breach of contract, and the Court made clear in its ruling that the conduct causing the breach was not done with Harvard's knowledge or to Harvard's benefit."
Hmmm...and we all know who did engage in that conduct, don't we? Is Harvard hanging Shleifer out to twist in the wind?
I find this drama fascinating from a moral and political perspective, but from a personal one, it must be tough for Summers. It can't be easy to have to fire a friend. But I don't see how Summers has any other choice.
Here's a question I don't know the answer to, and maybe someone out there can help: Do Harvard professors get paid while they're on leave? (I would think they do, except under exceptional circumstances.) More specifically, is Shleifer going to be paid this school year?
(Are you out there, Harvard Crimson?)
If so, hasn't he cost Harvard enough?
Some background. In 1992, HIID won a $50-million contract from USAID to consult on Russia's transition from communism to capitalism. At the time, HIID—which no longer exists—was run by Shleifer. But it all came crashing down when the government charged Shleifer with insider trading, allegedly investing in companies he was directing US dollars toward. In 2000, the government filed a civil lawsuit against Harvard, charging fraud.
The settlement appears to be a victory for both sides. The government gets some money and some vindication; Harvard gets rid of a lawsuit that has dragged on for years, brought reams of bad publicity—it would bring more if it weren't so darn complicated—and could, if they'd lost a trial, have cost the university considerably more than $26.5 million.
So now comes the interesting part: What will Larry Summers do with Andres Shleifer? Though Shleifer is mysteriously on leave for the upcoming school year, he still has tenure at Harvard. He is officially the Whipple V. N. Jones professor of economics.
On the one hand, Shleifer has just cost the university almost $27 million. (Perhaps more, if you include legal fees.) On the other hand, he's one of Summers' close friends at Harvard. And though Summers was said to have recused himself, it's widely believed that he remains a staunch supporter of his friend.
Let's pose a hypothetical, to make this even more interesting: What would Summers do if the professor who cost the university that much money were African-American and taught African-American Studies? Or a female sociologist? Or an African-American anthropologist?
I think the answer is pretty clear; those people would no longer be teaching at Harvard. More: Summers would make an example of them.
At this point, Summers may have no choice but to bid farewell to Shleifer. Certainly the language of the Harvard Gazette story on the matter (see link above) doesn't bode well for Shleifer.
"We welcome having this matter behind us," Robert W. Iuliano, the University's vice president and general counsel, told the Gazette. "Over the course of the litigation, the Court has affirmed our position that the University engaged in no institutional wrongdoing. "
Note that phrase, "no institutional wrongdoing."
A couple paragraphs down, the Gazette adds this: "The University was found liable only for breach of contract, and the Court made clear in its ruling that the conduct causing the breach was not done with Harvard's knowledge or to Harvard's benefit."
Hmmm...and we all know who did engage in that conduct, don't we? Is Harvard hanging Shleifer out to twist in the wind?
I find this drama fascinating from a moral and political perspective, but from a personal one, it must be tough for Summers. It can't be easy to have to fire a friend. But I don't see how Summers has any other choice.
Here's a question I don't know the answer to, and maybe someone out there can help: Do Harvard professors get paid while they're on leave? (I would think they do, except under exceptional circumstances.) More specifically, is Shleifer going to be paid this school year?
(Are you out there, Harvard Crimson?)
If so, hasn't he cost Harvard enough?
Anyone Remember Bonfire of the Vanities?
Movie studios have never exactly been a font of principle and courage, but even by their standards, it'd be pathetic if they buckled to Catholic pressure to water down The Da Vinci Code.
The thesis of the book is that the Catholic Church suppressed the revelation of a marriage between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, and imposed a male hierarchy upon what had been a religion with a strong female presence.
Imagine...someone saying that the Catholic Church is dominated by men. The outrage!
So naturally, Catholic groups such as Opus Dei and the Catholic League are pushing Sony and director Ron Howard to water down or change the book's central tenet. (Does the Catholic League do anything except protest?) And Sony is hinting that it doesn't want to do anything to offend Catholics.... Problem is, if you change the conspiracy theory, the book pretty much won't make any sense whatsoever.
The Da Vinci Code is barely a book in some traditional measures, such as characterization; it's really a dressed-up screenplay. At least from that perspective, it's pretty darn good. It may be all a crock, but it's a fun read, and it'd make a great movie pretty much as written.
So let The Da Vinci Code be. Remember: It's a novel. Fiction. Why would the Catholic Church be so afraid that people will believe a fiction? Or is it just this particular fiction that the church doesn't want people to believe>
The thesis of the book is that the Catholic Church suppressed the revelation of a marriage between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, and imposed a male hierarchy upon what had been a religion with a strong female presence.
Imagine...someone saying that the Catholic Church is dominated by men. The outrage!
So naturally, Catholic groups such as Opus Dei and the Catholic League are pushing Sony and director Ron Howard to water down or change the book's central tenet. (Does the Catholic League do anything except protest?) And Sony is hinting that it doesn't want to do anything to offend Catholics.... Problem is, if you change the conspiracy theory, the book pretty much won't make any sense whatsoever.
The Da Vinci Code is barely a book in some traditional measures, such as characterization; it's really a dressed-up screenplay. At least from that perspective, it's pretty darn good. It may be all a crock, but it's a fun read, and it'd make a great movie pretty much as written.
So let The Da Vinci Code be. Remember: It's a novel. Fiction. Why would the Catholic Church be so afraid that people will believe a fiction? Or is it just this particular fiction that the church doesn't want people to believe>
Tuesday, August 02, 2024
The Things You Learn While the TV is on in the Background of a Motel Room
Big & Rich are the most uncool white men in the history of creation. And the fans at country music concerts couldn't dance if their lives depended on it. Sorry, red staters, but it's true.
I mean, really..."my give a damn's busted"?
I mean, really..."my give a damn's busted"?
Am I a Sentimental Fool?
That's what a poster accuses me of being (see the posts under "Steroid Nation") for accusing the entire Red Sox team of being on steroids yet cheering Jason Giambi on like mad.
The answer is, yes, I am a sentimental fool. And if you throw some alcohol in me, I am also a dancing fool.
More to the point....
Other people have suggested to me that Giambi's remarkable return to form must mean that "he's back on the juice." I simply refuse to believe it. After the health problems he went through last season...after all the vitriole to which he was subjected, despite being the only man in baseball to tell the truth and admit that he took steroids...I simply can't believe that Giambi would risk taking them again. And so I choose to believe that he worked and worked and worked—especially with hitting coach Don Mattingly—and has become a great player again.
We all need to believe in something, right? I choose to believe in redemption. Because we all make mistakes. Don't we deserve the chance to make things right?
Jason, please—don't prove me wrong. I don't think I could handle the disappointment.
The answer is, yes, I am a sentimental fool. And if you throw some alcohol in me, I am also a dancing fool.
More to the point....
Other people have suggested to me that Giambi's remarkable return to form must mean that "he's back on the juice." I simply refuse to believe it. After the health problems he went through last season...after all the vitriole to which he was subjected, despite being the only man in baseball to tell the truth and admit that he took steroids...I simply can't believe that Giambi would risk taking them again. And so I choose to believe that he worked and worked and worked—especially with hitting coach Don Mattingly—and has become a great player again.
We all need to believe in something, right? I choose to believe in redemption. Because we all make mistakes. Don't we deserve the chance to make things right?
Jason, please—don't prove me wrong. I don't think I could handle the disappointment.
CNN Drives Me Mad
Bill Schneider on CNN just flashed a poll saying that 76% of Americans don't object to the teaching of creationism in public schools...but in a classic case of either bad polling or bad reporting, Schneider didn't mention whether Americans supported teaching evolution as part of a science curriculum or in a religious context. Which is kind of the point, no?
What would the response be if the poll asked, "Should creationism be taught in science courses?"
If the number of Americans who said no wasn't higher than 24%, I'd be a little surprised and a lot depressed.
What would the response be if the poll asked, "Should creationism be taught in science courses?"
If the number of Americans who said no wasn't higher than 24%, I'd be a little surprised and a lot depressed.
Steroid Nation
So now Seattle Mariners pitcher Jamie Franklin has tested positive for steroids, the second major league baseball player in two days to be busted. (The Orioles' Rafael Palmeiro, of course, was the first.)
This is all very discouraging, but equally unsurprising. All the stories about how widespread steroid use has been in baseball are proving to be true. And Palmeiro's finger-wagging denial before Congress now seems ever-more calculated and practiced; it reminds me of Bill Clinton's adamant tone when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman."
Which brings me to my point: We now have to consider very seriously the possibility that the entire Red Sox team was on steroids last year, when the Sox won the Series. It certainly helps to explain their behavior, in addition to their hitting and pitching.
As a result, we should now discuss whether the Sox' World Series victory should go into the record books with an asterisk...kind of like the 1918 Black Sox.
It pains me to say this, but perhaps we should just negate that Series victory....as if it never happened.
This is all very discouraging, but equally unsurprising. All the stories about how widespread steroid use has been in baseball are proving to be true. And Palmeiro's finger-wagging denial before Congress now seems ever-more calculated and practiced; it reminds me of Bill Clinton's adamant tone when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman."
Which brings me to my point: We now have to consider very seriously the possibility that the entire Red Sox team was on steroids last year, when the Sox won the Series. It certainly helps to explain their behavior, in addition to their hitting and pitching.
As a result, we should now discuss whether the Sox' World Series victory should go into the record books with an asterisk...kind of like the 1918 Black Sox.
It pains me to say this, but perhaps we should just negate that Series victory....as if it never happened.
Monday, August 01, 2024
The Letter Goes Public
Conrad Harper's letter to Larry Summers and the rest of the Harvard Corporation has been posted on the Harvard website. Because I'm writing from a dial-up connection—yes, dial-up—I can't really quote from it here. No matter; you should read it yourself . It's quite remarkable. We now know that at least one member of the Harvard Corporation called on Larry Summers to resign last spring....
I've long argued that many people at Harvard have embarrassed themselves or done damage to their own reputation in order to defend Larry Summers. Some did so because Summers was or could be responsible for their own professional advancement; some did so out of the belief (mistaken, in my opinion) that they were helping Harvard.
I have also argued that one unintended consequence of the Corporation's choice of Larry Summers might be a complete discrediting of the Corporation, leading to meaningful reform of the secretive, elitist way the Harvard Corporation does business. I still think that's a long shot—at least the second part of the thesis—but we're a little closer to that than we were about a week ago.
I've long argued that many people at Harvard have embarrassed themselves or done damage to their own reputation in order to defend Larry Summers. Some did so because Summers was or could be responsible for their own professional advancement; some did so out of the belief (mistaken, in my opinion) that they were helping Harvard.
I have also argued that one unintended consequence of the Corporation's choice of Larry Summers might be a complete discrediting of the Corporation, leading to meaningful reform of the secretive, elitist way the Harvard Corporation does business. I still think that's a long shot—at least the second part of the thesis—but we're a little closer to that than we were about a week ago.
August Doldrums
I'm up in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, doing some research on a topic TBD. (Not the worst place to be working in the first week of August in what has been a miserable summer, at least in terms of the weather.) So the posts will be somewhat sporadic for the next few days...
Here are things I might write about if I had the time today:
1) Jason Giambi hitting as many home runs in a month (14) as the Yankee recordholder, Mickey Mantle (good)
2) John Bolton (bad)
3) The reaction I received when I told a group of science students, about half of them women, that I'd written a book about Larry Summers and Harvard (sarcastic laughter that surprised even me)
4) the question of why the New York Times sports section put a story about the Red Sox winning a game above the fold on page one, and how the Times is either giving Boston a nod, now that it wons the Globe, or trying to show its status as a national paper at the expense of hometown fans....
More tk....
Here are things I might write about if I had the time today:
1) Jason Giambi hitting as many home runs in a month (14) as the Yankee recordholder, Mickey Mantle (good)
2) John Bolton (bad)
3) The reaction I received when I told a group of science students, about half of them women, that I'd written a book about Larry Summers and Harvard (sarcastic laughter that surprised even me)
4) the question of why the New York Times sports section put a story about the Red Sox winning a game above the fold on page one, and how the Times is either giving Boston a nod, now that it wons the Globe, or trying to show its status as a national paper at the expense of hometown fans....
More tk....
