Jeffrey Epstein's Sex Slave? Yes, you read that right. Word has it that Jeffrey Epstein's "assistant" may actually have been a sex slave.

As Gawker reports, citing previously undisclosed police documents,

According to one girl's statement:

"The encounters included bringing in his assistant, Nada Marcinkova. [Redacted] explained Epstein had purchased her from her family in Yugoslavia. Epstein bragged he brought her into the United States to be his Yugoslavian sex slave.

In fairness, there's not much context for this, it's just a quote from one woman, Epstein could have been making a joke, and so on. But still...this story gets weirder and weirder. I was joking before when I said that Epstein's reclusiveness might have been linked to his sexual idiosyncracies; now I think that's more and more likely.

Below is the girl in question. How old do you think she is?


  ¶ 5:48 PM 10 comments

  Why the Rich and Famous Are Different From You and Me Because they get preferential treatment from the police, that's why. First billionaire Jeffrey Epstein gets offered a sweetheart plea bargain, then he's arrested on the relatively minor count of soliciting a prostitute when cops (as opposed to prosecutors) feel that he's been hiring minors for sex.

Now there's the suggestion that the LAPD tried to cover up for Mel Gibson after his arrest for drunk driving prompted Gibson to go on an anti-Semitic verbal rampage.

According to the Los Angeles Times,

On Friday, a Sheriff's Department spokesman told reporters that Gibson had been arrested that day in Malibu "without incident." But [TMZ.com] alleged that evening that supervisors at the Malibu-Lost Hills sheriff's station tried to downplay the actor's behavior by omitting his most offensive actions in an abridged version of the arresting deputy's report, which has yet to be made public.

Just to clarify...the cop who arrested Gibson was actually ordered to re-write his report, eliminating all references to anti-Semitic remarks.

Now TMZ.com has learned that Gibson was twice before stopped for drunk driving...and the cops allowed him to leave the scene without a ticket or arrest.

(These guys are beating the MSM on this story pretty badly, by the way.)

According to the website,

We're also told that deputies at the Sheriff's station were star struck by Gibson and a number of them went to Gibson's holding cell to get a look of the star. The problem for the Sheriff's department -- there's a mounted camera in the station and the deputies can be seen fawning over the actor. Sheriff's officials have called some of the officers who were caught on tape in and warned them they might be subject to discipline.

Of course, it's no surprise that there are two different systems of justice in this country, one for the rich and famous and one for the rest of us. But it's never a bad thing to be reminded of that.  ¶ 6:49 AM 8 comments

  Monday Morning Zen

Sea Lion, Santa Fe island, Galapagos  ¶ 6:45 AM 4 comments

  Quote for the Day "I have two words for you: Cham—pagne."

—Pamela Anderson, asked how she was coping with nerves before her wedding to Kid Rock, in the New York Daily News.  ¶ 6:28 AM 4 comments

  Lieberman Takes a Hit I am shocked: The New York Times has endorsed Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senate race.

The Times rejects Lieberman's dubious claim that a vote for Lamont means some kind of Democratic litmus test that will tear the party apart.

That's far from the issue. Mr. Lieberman is not just a senator who works well with members of the other party. And there is a reason that while other Democrats supported the war, he has become the only target. In his effort to appear above the partisan fray, he has become one of the Bush administration’s most useful allies as the president tries to turn the war on terror into an excuse for radical changes in how this country operates.

Moreover:

Mr. Lieberman prides himself on being a legal thinker and a champion of civil liberties. But he appointed himself defender of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the administration’s policy of holding hundreds of foreign citizens in prison without any due process. He seconded Mr. Gonzales’s sneering reference to the “quaint” provisions of the Geneva Conventions. He has shown no interest in prodding his Republican friends into investigating how the administration misled the nation about Iraq’s weapons. There is no use having a senator famous for getting along with Republicans if he never challenges them on issues of profound importance.

This primary, the paper concludes, has become a referendum on [Lieberman's] warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.

Eloquent—and accurate. Let's hope that the Times endorsement helps Ned Lamont as he tries to topple the oleaginous Lieberman.  ¶ 3:14 PM 0 comments

  Mel Gibson's Jewish Problem Mel Gibson was arrested for drunk driving on Friday, which is bad. He was drinking from an open bottle of tequila and going 80 mph in a 45 mph zone, which is bad.

"My life is fucked," he said when the cops pulled him over. "You motherfucker," he told one officer. "I'm going to fuck you. You're going tor regret that you ever did this to me."

Also bad is the fact that, after being arrested, Gibson became "increasingly belligerent," according to the police report, and started spewing anti-Semitic insults. According to the police report, "Gibson blurted out a barrage of anti-Semitic remarks about 'fucking Jews.' Gibson yelled out, 'The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.' Gibson then asked 'Are you a Jew?'"

Gibson has since apologized, but did not specifically address the issue of his anti-Semitism, which means that his apology doesn't mean a thing.

Mel Gibson has two problems: the fact that he's an alcoholic, and the fact that he's a bigot. What a sad way to end an impressive career.  ¶ 2:55 PM 1 comments

  Jeffrey Epstein: DId He Get the Kid-Glove Treatment? A number of news reports suggest that the Palm Beach police have shown the kind of gentle treatment to Jeffrey Epstein that it wouldn't show to, say, someone who isn't worth a few billion dollars. Epstein at one point was offered a plea bargain which, among other things, mandated that he have no unsupervised conduct with minors.

Epstein was given months to respond—an option not generally given to people suspected of regularly hiring 15-year-olds for sex—but something went wrong and he failed to respond to the offer. In any case, according to the Smoking Gun, "police investigators--who anticipated five felony counts being lodged against Epstein--were incensed at what they clearly viewed as a sweetheart prosecution offer."  ¶ 11:14 AM 13 comments

  Larry Goes to La-La Land This should be interesting: Larry Summers is joining others from the powerbroker class at a retreat hosted by Rupert Murdoch in Los Angeles. Other guests will include Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Bono. Billy Beane of the Oakland A's will also be there, and there'll be a panel called "Meet the MySpace Generation." (Rupert Murdoch owns MySpace.)

Here's a prediction: The fact that Rupert Murdoch is hosting a panel on the MySpace generation means that MySpace is over. I don't know what will take its place, but the MySpace Generation probably does.

Summers will appear on a panel with Newt Gingrich and William Bratton. The theme: How to reform institutions.

Expect plenty of historical revisionism to go around....

In all seriousness, this is the kind of thing that folks at Harvard should be concerned about. First, Summers has a podium and an audience of extremely influential people to peddle his line about Harvard being afraid to change. Second, why didn't the Corporation restrict Summers' ability to talk about these things? Third, why is Summers even doing it? Could you imagine Derek Bok appearing on such a panel under similar circumstances?  ¶ 9:37 AM 13 comments

  "He Likes Larry Summers a Lot" That's what Alan Dershowitz once said of billionaire recluse Jeffrey Epstein, who has given some $30 milllion to Harvard.

But apparently, he likes getting rub-and-tugs from underage girls even more—girls aged "sixteen or seventeen at most," according to his houseman, Jose Alessi. (To whom fell the ghastly work of washing off Epstein's sex toys.)

The Smoking Gun has posted the affidavit prepared in Epstein's arrest, and, well, let's just say it's a lot dirtier than the Starr Report.

Epstein's predicament makes it hard to read lines like these from the Crimson in quite the same way one did before.

University officials seem to appreciate Epstein’s proclivity to privacy, and did not return repeated phone calls requesting information about his donation.

Epstein himself also declined to comment for this article. His staff say he has never granted an official interview to a member of the press.

“He was very anxious to make this donation anonymously,” Dershowitz says.

Apparently Epstein has been making quite a few donations privately.

Let's play a little Mad Libs with some more text from the Crimson:

Yet Epstein appears interested in more than the large collection of planes, trains and automobiles which his fortune has allowed him to amass—and he has found Harvard the perfect staging ground for his _________ pursuits.

Networking with the University’s greatest and most well-known _______, he has spurred research through both discussion and ________ he has contributed to various _______—most often in the _________.

I am sure Epstein's friends at Harvard will rush to defend him. (Dershowitz, that great advocate for Larry Summers, O.J. Simpson and Claus von Bulow, is now part of Epstein's legal team.) That's the kind of friendship really large amounts of money can buy.

But because I think the obscene wealth of a handful of Americans is a real problem for this country, I will say this: Few things in life are as satisying as seeing a hedge-fund billionaire take a fall.  ¶ 9:42 AM 26 comments

  "Could Tanning Be Almost as Addictive as Heroin?"


Okay...I have completely come around on Stephen Colbert. The man is brilliant. This takedown of network morning shows is epic.  ¶ 9:32 AM 3 comments

  Bias at the Times The Yanks won a beauty last night, 8-7 against the Rangers, topping off a three-game sweep of a solid Texas team. Jason Giambi won it with his 29th homer in the top of the 9th, snapping out of, we hope, a 4-32 slump.

But you'd barely know that from reading the New York Times.

For the third straight day, at least 50% of the front page of the Times sports section has been covered by photos and coverage of the Mets. The Yankee game gets about three inches of column space in the left-hand margin; the previous two days, the Yanks were relegated to the inner depths of the section—even though the Mets lost both those games. The Mets managed to take one of three from the Cubbies, who have a record of 39-61. And yet, huge above-the-fold photos....

This is getting ridiculous.

Let's exercise some editorial judgement here, shall we?

The Yankees are in a terrific pennant race against century-old rivals, the Red Sox. Right now they're a game and a half back, but with their injuries and pitching problems, you'd have to consider them the underdogs. Still, they're fighting. They're also in a tight race for the wild card against the surging Minnesota Twins and the "world champion" Chicago White Sox. And the reinvigorated Toronto Blue Jays.

Pretty exciting stuff, huh?

But again and again in the Times, it's the Mets on Page One.

Do they deserve it? Sure, they're in first place in the NL East by 11.5 games. But remember—they're playing in the weaker National League. If they were playing in the AL East, they'd be a game ahead of the Yanks, half a game behind the Sox. (That's assuming they could maintain that record playing in the AL, which I doubt—they're at .500 against the Yankees, and they got swept by the Red Sox.) If they were playing in the AL Central, where Detroit has won 68 games, they'd be nine games out of first.

How much competition do the Mets face? (I.e., how good are they, really?) Well, the second place team in their division, the Braves, has a record of 48-52. The second-place team is four games under .500. If the Braves were in the AL East, they'd be next to last, just beating out the worst team in baseball, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

So, please, Times—can we have a little sports reality check?  ¶ 8:40 AM 5 comments

  "There's Scales Everywhere"



If you're afraid of sharks, don't watch this video.  ¶ 8:37 AM 3 comments

  Mmm-hmmm—Definitely in the Eye of the Beholder Need proof that Washington is a sexist city? Then check out Roll Call newspaper's list of the 50 Most Beautiful People in Washington.

(And no, that's not an oxymoron. Washington has its share of hotties. They just happen to come from somewhere else.)

Take, for example, #47, Staci Meirs, a lobbyist (they call it "congressional liason") for the National Education Association.











Pretty attractive, right?

Compare that to New York congressman John McHugh, who comes in at #32.



















What's wrong with this picture?

Let's try again. Here's #29, Majida Mourad, formerly a congressional aide, now...a lobbyist. (They call her a vice-president at the Abraham Group.)













Works for me.

But wait...five notches above her, at #24, there's House Majority Leader John Boehner, Republican of Ohio:



















Huh.

There are lots of things to like about Washington, but sometimes....  ¶ 1:39 PM 6 comments

  And Speaking of Great Newspaper Headlines After long probe, Palm Beach billionaire faces solicitation charge
—Palm Beach Post - FL, United States

(Sorry, but that was just too easy.)  ¶ 10:11 AM 12 comments

  Genius in Our Midst What a week for pop culture!

Last night, the Dixie Chicks appeared on PBS, thus confirming that they've made a complete career switch from Red State country-babes to Blue State crossover paragons of feminine beauty. So does their new, all-in-black look....



Dixie Chicks: From right to left....

Yesterday reclusive genius Green Gartside, better known as Scritti Politti, released his fourth album in the last twenty years, White Bread Black Beer, and it is typically crafted, perfectionist, beautiful music. To some derision—this is the sweetest pop music you'll ever hear, and it would probably make Ross Douthat deeply uncomfortable—I've been a fan since the late '80s. Others are finally coming around. The New York Times loves the new record, calling it "remarkably beautiful," "subtle and exacting," marked by "the precision of the phrasing and the sweetness of the melody."

Well...yes.


Green Gartside. Quite weird.

And on Friday comes the release of Michael Mann's Miami Vice, the movie version of his famed '80s TV show, which my college roommates and I used to watch on Friday nights before going out and getting silly drunk. (It put one in the mood.) Mann is another genius—as perfectionist and exacting as Gartside is, though slightly more prolific. His films include Collateral, Heat, The Insider, Last of the Mohicans, the much-underrated Manhunter, Ali, and Thief. They're typified by stunning visuals, gritty screenwriting, and the ability to obtain great performances from his actors, like Val Kilmer's in Heat, Will Smith's in Ali, and Tom Cruise (!) in Collateral. He also writes the best parts for women in modern film.

Miami Vice has been surrounded by bad buzz, mostly because the filming of it was an incredible saga. Colin Farrell got addicted to drugs and separated a rib from his sternum, not necessarily in that order; shooting (of the film) was interrupted by shooting (of bullets); Jamie Foxx refused to film in Brasil; Mann banned the color red from appearing in the film; and so on.

I can't wait....


Michael Mann:
Cinematic god.  ¶ 9:09 AM 3 comments

  Yup—It's Cancer The biopsy came back thumbs-up yesterday. But before anyone worries, this isn't a melanoma, the very serious form of skin cancer; it's just a basal cell carcinoma, which sits there on your skin and gradually gets bigger but isn't life-threatening.

I've come to quite like my funky dermatologists' office. The downtown loft quality of it, the wireless Internet access in the waiting room—I hope whoever was cruising Manhunt.net ("Hook up now!") found what he was looking for—the flat-screen TV on one wall, the Bebel Gilberto playing in the background...it's all oddly soothing.

Doctor John Adams started me on a treatment protocol in which the cancer is coated with an ointment called Levulan and then exposed to blue light, once a week for a month, which is supposed to kill the cancer cells. A nurse took me into a back room and laid me down on a table, putting goggles over my eyes—the light, apparently, is pretty bright. Seven minutes of crackling and fizzing later, and treatment one was done.

If all goes well, in a month I can proudly wear my "Live Strong" bracelet....  ¶ 8:09 AM 3 comments

  Another John Kennedy Book Lloyd Grove reports in yesterday's Daily News that in September, Viking will publish a new memoir about John F. Kennedy, Jr. Called Forever Young: Growing Up With John F. Kennedy Jr.," it's written by William Sylvester Noonan, who was a friend of John's.

According to Grove, The 256-page book, "featuring never-before-seen personal snapshots of JFK Jr.," is "packed with never-revealed details of John and Carolyn Bessette's courtship and wedding, the launch of George [magazine], John's unusually close relationship with his mother, Jackie, and the heartbreaking aftermath of the plane crash off Martha's Vineyard that killed John, Carolyn and Carolyn's sister [Lauren Bessette]," promises Viking's fall catalogue.

Noonan also shares the more ribald episodes, including John's many famous conquests....

Ugh.

I know; I wrote a book about John, and so I shouldn't fault anyone else for doing the same, especially without having read it. So I promise to keep an open mind.

At the same time, this subject matter makes me wince. To the extent that I knew about it, I steered clear of such tales in American Son. Seems to me that, since John didn't live long enough to balance the trivial (his dating life) with the substantial (say, a career in politics), there's no balance to this kind of memoir. There's no greatness tempered with human foibles, just diminution.

I also steered clear of delving deeply into John and Carolyn's relationship, as that was one area, I thought, John wouldn't have wanted people to write about. Public about so much else, he was private—and protective—when it came to his marriage. (Interestingly, people who know I wrote a book about John ask me about Carolyn at least as often as they do about John, particularly women. Carolyn remains an object of some fascination.)

I know: It's funny for someone who was criticized for "exposing his boss' secrets" to have such compunctions. But I do. Even though, at this point, no one is the slightest bit up in arms about this new book, as they were about mine.

Well, it is dangerous to judge a book by its catalogue copy. Who knows? Maybe it's a warm and fond story. I hope so.
__________________________________________________________________

P.S. Have you ever noticed how male friendship makes conservatives squirm? In a recent article in Slate, young Harvard conservative Ross Douthat alleges that I had a "man-crush" on John. Whatever. Perhaps Douthat is projecting. As he recounts in his own memoir, one of the sensual highlights of his young life was skinnydipping with William F. Buckley....
  ¶ 8:06 AM 17 comments

  The Tip of the Housing Iceberg Here's a story you're going to hear a lot more about before too long: In Massachusetts, home foreclosures are up 66% from last year, thanks to the combination of rising interest rates and adjustable interest rate mortgages.

I have a feeling this is going to be a huge problem...the real collapse of the real estate bubble.  ¶ 7:29 AM 3 comments

  Cancer Humor—Get It! A poster below had this to say about my earlier blog regarding the small patch of skin cancer on my right arm:

As a survivor of a life-threatening, invasive cancer, I was actually unhappy with your breezy "I may have cancer" narrative--tends to trivialize a serious problem. Sorry, what you have is a common condition that has no invasive component, no tendency to metastasize, and no life-threatening implications.

To which I say...well, wouldn't it have been more offensive if I wrote about a non-life-threatening cancer with the utmost gravity? Or if I wrote about a life-threatening cancer with the utmost levity?

For what it's worth, the central commentary of that post was really about the absurdity of the doctor's office I went to. The cancer part was, if you will, a subplot.

And, yes, I do find it good for a few laughs.

Yesterday I happened to see a cousin of mine, a mother of four, who, about a month ago, had a golf-ball sized tumor removed from her brain. "You think you've got problems," I told her, showing her my band-aid. "I've got cancer."

My cousin, who understood full well what I was up to, had a good laugh.

Later, she couldn't remember the exact color of the house I grew up in. "You have to forgive me," she said. "I had a brain tumor."

She added that she thought she could use that excuse for about a year. I told her that, the next time I forgot something, I was going to use it: "You have to forgive me—my cousin had a brain tumor."

Okay, maybe we're a little twisted. But people respond to disease, whatever its degree of seriousness, differently. And humor, of course, is a defense mechanism. My maternal grandmother died of cancer; my mother had cancer; my stepfather had cancer; my father has skin cancer. My paternal grandfather, whom I never knew, had Parkinson's, from which he died. Basically, he starved to death. My dad also has Parkinson's. When I see him these days, I help cut his food. (Just keep passing the open windows, as Kurt Vonnegut once wrote.) It's beginning to look like Parkinson's has a genetic connection. So if typoos start to appear on this blog, buy me a drink, and don't forget the straw.

About certain things, you see, I have a dark sense of humor. Cancer and Dick Cheney, primarily.

On a more serious note, congratulations to the poster for surviving his or her experience with cancer, which clearly was vastly more serious than mine is. Whenever someone beats cancer, it's cause for celebration.  ¶ 8:33 AM 4 comments

  Monday Morning Zen

Sunset off Floreana Island, Galapagos  ¶ 8:29 AM 7 comments

  Notes on Lieberman: The Soul of the Party? The other day, Beltway conventional-wisdomist Mort Kondracke wrote this about the Lieberman—Lamont race:

This is no exaggeration: The soul of the Democratic Party — and possibly the future of civility in American politics — is on the line in the Aug. 8 Senate primary in Connecticut.

Nope. No exaggeration there.

Does anyone seriously think the Lieberman-Lamont campaign will have one iota of impact upon the civility of any single race in the future?

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for these pundits who talk about all the horrors that have been visited Lieberman actually to name some of them. The worst I've heard is that someone called Lieberman a "warmonger." That's less an incivility than an exaggeration.

Kondracke's column inspired Joshua Micab Marshall to write this, which (you'll be shocked to know) strikes me as exactly right:

I think the Lieberman skeptics are really on to something when they point out that in the Kondrackes and others there is this sense that for a well-liked-in-the-beltway senior pol like Lieberman to face a primary challenge is somehow a genuine threat to the foundations of the system. You'd think he was a life peer, if not an hereditary noble, suddenly yanked out of the House of Lords and forced to run for his seat like they do in the Commons.

Marshall's right: From the viewpoint of the Beltway Boys, the worst horror inflicted upon Lieberman is the mere fact that someone has dared to challenge him in the primary.

I'd add to this the small point that Kondracke isn't even a Democrat, and it's kind of annoying to have a Fox commentator lecturing the Dems on what constitutes the soul of their party. The best way for the Dems to lose the soul of their party is to listen to a Fox commentator telling them how to save the soul of their party.

And two, does Kondracke not remember how Lieberman won his Senate seat? With attack ads portraying his opponent as fat, sleepy and out-of-touch. I'm not sure I've seen anything in the current campaign that's nastier than the tactics that Lieberman used to win power for himself....  ¶ 9:00 AM 0 comments

  A Fight for the Country Sometimes it seems to me that we have a government at odds with the people of this country, a government intent on imposing values on the American public that are at odds with the best traditions of American freedom.

For example....

The New York Times reports that NASA has quietly altered its mission statement to delete any mention of Earth.

From 2002 until this year, NASA ’s mission statement, prominently featured in its budget and planning documents, read: “To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers ... as only NASA can.”

In early February, the statement was quietly altered, with the phrase “to understand and protect our home planet” deleted.

Why does this matter? Because it's an attempt to ensure that NASA can't consider the problem of global warming.

Without [the language pertaining to Earth], scientists say, there will be far less incentive to pursue projects to improve understanding of terrestrial problems like climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

President Bush has often said that we are fighting a war on terror to spread freedom abroad...and yet, his freedom has a distinctly Orwellian cast.

In related news, Christine Axsmith was a CIA contractor who wrote a blog available only to people with security clearance on issues of interest to that community, such as the caliber of food at various canteens. On July 13, after writing a blog post, Axsmith had her blog pulled down, lost her security clearance, and was fired.

The subject of the last post? "Waterboarding is Torture and Torture is Wrong."

It's not just a war for freedom overseas, is it? It's a war for freedom at home. A war over what kind of nation we really are—what we stand for, what we believe in, how we live our lives.

So far, I'm not sure who's winning.  ¶ 8:25 AM 0 comments

  I Write, You Post And not infrequently, your posts are more informed than my blogs. Such as this one from someone named "Eagle" relating to the firing of Harvard deputy dean Pat O'Brien.

With an inside perspective, I can say that this event is much more significant than your blog has noted, Richard. O'Brien was in charge of everyone who interacts with students in the College's administration (though only as a House Master did she interact with them herself). All the lines on the org-chart she drew (and re-drew, and tinkered with) ran through her before branching.

Gross made a decision here and there, and chaired the Administrative Board, but mostly he only ran the curricular review and tried to herd the faculty. O'Brien was running the college. This means House Masters, sub-deans of students, and every associate dean, curricular or otherwise.

And she knew nothing about colleges. She could be passionate on certain topics, but they never had to do with the lives and learning of 19-year-olds. She was hired by a headhunter who is worth some close investigating; a corporate category-head to whom many of the College's non-curricular problems as an educational entity can be traced directly.

More importantly, O'Brien's management style was incommunicative, ruthless, and subserved no stated educational aims. To call it 'intimidating' is to miss the point that she actually did simply and with no advance feedback fire the people who might in a merely unhealthy organization feel intimidated. And the atmosphere was: "The beatings will continue until morale improves!"

If you didn't read the job listing for a "Director of Internal Communications" for the College in the spring, you're missing out on a good sample of how survey numbers were going to be boosted under her vision (I saw it in the Globe). She believed that branding tools were what schools needed more of.

As to the larger picture: The anonymous poster above is living in a fool's paradise if s/he thinks that the elimination of Harry Lewis's position was a well-thought-through administrative adjustment. It was a way of justifying his ousting, nothing more, and for three years no one has done his job. Gross never could have intended to do it; and no one except the old guard in the building seems to understand what's missing.

O'Brien was, I hope, fired because she was lousy at her job. I understand she's a good House Master, though, so one would hope she would stay on there. And some of her campus-wide initatives might be nice grace-notes to supplement a proper rethink and re-articulation of the student experience on campus.

The larger question is whether Gross has developed good enough relationships in the faculty to allow him to survive more than a year as Dean, given how poorly things have been going in the leading of the College proper. I'd say it's three to two in favor, since Bok would probably expect the new president to need some continuity in the Dean role. (But note that O'Brien's ouster couldn't wait even a year for a new president! Significant indeed; there are many stories under here).
  ¶ 1:40 PM 8 comments

  Dat Deputy Dawg, She Gone Not long ago, it was announced that Harvard College Deputy Dean Pat O'Brien—"deputy dawg," as skeptics dubbed her—was taking a leave of absence for personal reasons. Whoops! Turns out she was fired.

The Crimson reports today that O'Brien, former dean of the business school at Simmons College, was ousted by a combination of Harvard College dean Dick Gross and FAS dean Jeremy Knowles. Adding insult to injury, the position of deputy dean may itself be eliminated; the job appears to be either something that Bill Kirby foisted upon Dick Gross, or Larry Summers foisted on Bill Kirby, or both.

Either way, O'Brien, considered a Summers apparatchik, didn't make many friends at Harvard. She does, however, get a send-off from Summers himself: “I very much hope that all that she put into motion to break with past practices and place greater emphasis on student welfare will continue and be enhanced,” Summers said.

Is that my imagination, or did Summers just take a dig at former Harvard College dean Harry Lewis, whom he ousted in March 2003? Or am I wrong, and that's a self-serving way to characterize his regime as one of positive change and everything else as more of the same?

O'Brien joins a long list of deans, professors, and administrators—along with one cantankerous president—who've lost their jobs during or just after the Summers regime. Here's a suggestion for the Crimson: How about a piece on how much money Harvard has spent in severance packages related to Larry Summers' management skills? (What, for example, do you think Bill Kirby got that's keeping him so quiet these days?) Not to mention Summers' own seven-figure golden parachute.....

Then total in Summers' payoffs—money for Af-Am to keep Skip Gates happy, money for female professors, etc.—and what do you have? Something like one of those $100-million gifts people are supposedly not giving to Harvard?  ¶ 12:44 PM 6 comments

  Annals of Modern Parental Paranoia Ever get the feeling that today's yuppie parents worry too much? I do.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, a hoity-toity collection of D.C. suburbs, parents recently started freaking out about a man in a white van who was stalking their young children. Phones began ringing off hooks; Internet bulletin boards were buzzing.

"Please be advised that a man in a white panel van approached one of our 13-year-old girls this morning as she walked to practice," someone wrote in one of the unsigned e-mails. "The man tried unsuccessfully to engage the girl in conversation. She wisely ignored the man."

"The driver of the van in both cases was a white male, about 50 years old. He had light brown hair with a receding hairline. He was disheveled looking, wearing a white t-shirt. The van was old and looked like a van that a painter would drive."

Classic tropes of the child molester. He looks like a member of a lower economic class, but someone whom we invite into our home as part of the service class. He looks like a loser—badly dressed, slightly overweight, bad hair. He drives a crummy but generic car. Of course he does; we've seen all this in movies and on television.

Except it's not true. The Washington Post reports that the whole scare came after "a man in a white van stopped a 13-year-old girl in the parking lot of a Potomac swimming pool.

"'Miss, I think you left your lights on,' the man reportedly said, according to police, who tracked down the teenager yesterday. The man then drove away."

And so an act of thoughtfulness is transformed into a modern-day witch hunt. Which says something, I think, about the underlying sense that people living in upscale commuter suburbs have of being disconnected to their town, of a lack of community that creates a social and psychological vacuum...into which a sinister man in a white van can drive, taking aim at the children, underscoring the artificiality of our modern lives.

  ¶ 9:09 AM 17 comments

  Lieberman: He's Losing A new poll shows Ned Lamont up by four points, 51-47...

While the poll suggests that Lieberman would do well running as an independent if he lost the primary to Lamont, imagine the pressure that would come down on him from the national party to bow out gracefully.

Sometimes, Joe, it's time to call it a day.....  ¶ 4:11 PM 3 comments

  Annals of Modern Medicine So the thing is, I may have cancer.

I don't mind writing that, because it's not a serious cancer, just a little skin thing, a small scaly patch smaller than a dime on my right forearm. It suddenly appeared on my arm about a year ago, and changed color slightly at different sunny times (and not in a good way). A friend who's a dermatologist frowned when she saw it, and I wound up making an appointment with another dermatologist she recommended, Dr. David Colbert, 5:15 last Tuesday.

Plus, I also had a little bump on my arm that my friend identified as an angioma, a benign tumor consisting of small blood vessels. (It looks like a little red dot.) I am too young (or so I like to believe) to have little red dots on my skin, except for the chicken pox which afflicted me at age eight, so I wanted to get that looked at as well. This is what happens when people of English descent take up scuba-diving.

I arrived at Colbert's downtown 5th Avenue office at 5:00, as suggested, to fill out the pages of paperwork that precede any modern visit to the doctor, one third of which is insurance info, one third of which is background health stuff, and one third of which is solicitations for cosmetic surgery—Botox, chemical peel, etc. It took me about two minutes to fill that out, and then I waited.....

...in what was surely one of the swanker doctor's waiting rooms I've ever experienced. A converted loft space with huge windows, blond hardwood floors, leather chairs, and two laptop computers on a glass desk so that you can check e-mail while you wait. The browser history had the last four days of visited sites preserved—someone was making reservations at a luxury resort in the Dominican Republic. Then I got creeped out by how people didn't realize or care that anyone could see what websites they'd been on and erased the history.

I sat in a chair to the left of the model with absolutely perfect skin, to the right of the slightly older model whose skin was also basically perfect. No angiomas that I could see. I had stumbled into the modelicious den of a hipster doctor.

Ho-hum. About an hour later—the models long gone by now—my name was called. A young, clean-cut doctor named John Adams introduced himself and said that Dr. Colbert was running late—his train was delayed—and so we should get started. I thought it a little odd to make an appointment with one doctor and see another, but let it go. I'm a go-along-to-get-along kind of guy.

The doctor sat me down on a reclining chair in an office whose front wall consisted of frosted glass—although the top part was clear, and I could easily see into the windows of the building across 19th Street. I wondered if the people across the street, when they got bored, checked out the models visiting the dermatologist.

Dr. Adams was a nice guy. We both had lived in Adams Morgan, which when I was there was considered bohemian by D.C. standards and was definitely dangerous. He used to go to Perry's, the sushi bar-cum-disco on 18th Street that kept me up on weekend nights when I lived at 1841 Columbia Road for $800 a month. We chatted about Washington for a minute. (There's really a Whole Foods in Adams Morgan? Things have changed.) He asked what I was there for, and I showed him my arm. He frowned too.

Before I really knew what was happening, he had injected me with two needles and reclined the chair. A biopsy for the scaly patch, apparently, followed by stitches. Then I smelled something odd and asked Dr. Adams, "Is that me burning?"

"Mmm-hmmm," he said. "Just a little laser." To remove the angioma. It was sort of an unpleasant smell.

Would have been nice if he'd mentioned that, I thought to myself, but again said nothing. Best not to disturb a doctor with a laser.

I wondered if I would ever see David Colbert, the doctor with whom I'd made my original appointment.

My arm sufficiently zapped, Dr. Adams turned off the laser, put a couple of bandaids on me, and had me make another appointment—with him, not with Dr. Colbert. A $12 co-payment and I was on my way.

Biopsy results come in next week; I'll keep you posted.









Dr. David Colbert:
Theoretically, my dermatologist.  ¶ 8:57 AM 5 comments

  Harvard's Princeton Complex I'm always struck, speaking with and interviewing folks at Harvard, by how much they have Princeton on their minds. The New Jersey university has several things that Harvard just can't seem to develop: outstanding undergraduate education based on personal interaction between students and professors; a sense of community and school spirit; alumni who give money in impressive percentages. (Harvard's alumni give a lot of money, but the percentage of alumni who give is relatively low.)

Now Princeton also has another advantage over Harvard: a progressive president who wants to build on Princeton's strengths while addressing its shortcomings (the small university's elitism and clubbiness, primarily). Shirley Tilghman presents such an interesting counterpart to Larry Summers; she clearly thinks about many of the same issues Summers did while he was president, yet moves her university forward in a much more consensus-driven way.

The Wall Street Journal just conducted this very interesting interview with
Tilghman.

Some parts relevant to Harvard:

WSJ: You were outspoken in your criticism of Mr. Summers's comments about women in the sciences. Why did you speak out?

Ms. Tilghman: There are 25 years of good social science that demonstrate the many cultural practices that act collectively to discourage women from entering and continuing careers in science and engineering. The research is overwhelming, and it is there for anybody to see. On the other hand, the data that would suggest there are innate differences in the abilities of men and women to succeed in the natural sciences are nonexistent.

WSJ: I keep hearing your name as a possible candidate to be president of Harvard. Are you interested?

Ms. Tilghman: I have the best job in higher education, and I have no intention of leaving it. I have also always understood that there was kind of an unwritten rule in the Ivy League that you don't poach each other's presidents.

Tilghman also speaks on fundraising, alumni preferences, increasing the size of Princeton's student body, financial aid, and more.

(And, incidentally, would that unwritten rule apply to Amy Gutmann?)  ¶ 7:40 AM 4 comments

  Our Frat Boy President

Whether he's addressing his British counterpart with the cheery phrase, "Yo, Blair," or giving an impromptu squeeze to Angela Merkel, our president just can't seem to grow up. Hard to believe that we have to live with this man for another two and a half years. (Don't you have the feeling that it's going to get worse before it gets better?)Which makes me think that the perceived maturity of the person who replaces Bush is going to be a huge factor in the 2008 race.... The world has shown itself to be a pretty tough and complicated place, not the sandbox the Bushies thought they could play in. I never thought I'd say this—he was such a dreary candidate!—but Al Gore is looking better and better....  ¶ 7:35 AM 10 comments

  Shameless Plug For almost 15 years I've been a fan of a little-known band called Dada, as they struggle to survive the insanity of the record business. (People may remember their one big hit, Dizz Knee Land.) You've never heard of him, but guitarist Michael Gurley is one of rock's finest. And don't get me started on the rhythm section. Trust me, you'd rather just listen to them.

Somehow, despite the usual record label hell—two record labels folded underneath them—Dada have managed to stay together, and hung in there long enough to take advantage of all the non-music biz ways of getting their songs out there—a web site, an e-mail list, a myspace page.

They've posted a new song on MySpace, "A Friend of Pat Robertson"—congratulations for avoiding the double possessive, Dada!—which is terrific. If you have the time, take a listen...  ¶ 8:52 AM 1 comments

  Is Joe Lieberman Going Negative? MysteryPollster analyzes those mysterious phone calls Connecticut voters have been receiving...and debates whether they're Lieberman staffers testing negative arguments against Ned Lamont, or Lieberman staffers trying to plant negative (and false) information about Lamont in voters' minds in the guise of a poll.....

Meanwhile, here's a great quote from a voter named Edward Anderson of New Haven. Lieberman saying he votes with the Democrats 90% of the time, Anderson says, "is like a man saying he only cheats on his wife once a month. ...He sells us out when it matters."

He sells us out when it matters—I think that's right.  ¶ 8:28 AM 0 comments

  Technical Difficulties Thanks to all of you who pointed out that this blog was down yesterday; I blame Seth Mnookin.

Here's hoping today is trouble-free.  ¶ 7:06 AM 0 comments

  Sox versus Yanks: Could It Be Great? By the way, the blog was a little light yesterday because I traveled up to Boston to meet with some folks at the Red Sox, doing research for the next book. It seems like a nice organization to work for—everyone in their front office is extremely casual and equally friendly. And very helpful.

I've just begun reading Seth Mnookin's book about the team, Feeding the Monster. The Sox gave him terrific access; too bad he's not much of a writer. (What Michael Lewis could have done with that access.) Mnookin writes as if he's got one hand tied behind his back. "Young left fielder Carl Yastrzemski—who soon came to be known by the nickname 'Yaz'—was an exciting player to watch..." Clunkety-clunkety-clunk. Ah, well. The reviews say that Mnookin got some great material, and I look forward to reading it.

I also look forward to the rest of this baseball season; it could be a great one for the AL East. The Sox are up by 1/2 a game, a mere 1/2 a game, when by all rights they should be running away with the season. While the Yankees have been falling to the turf with greater frequency than the Italian soccer team—injuries have cost them Gary Sheffield (so much for becoming a free agent next year, Gary) and Hideki Matsui (such an elegant man, he actually apologized to the team and the fans for breaking his wrist while trying to make a sliding catch)—the Sox ripped off 12 straight wins before the All-Star break. And the Yankees, who lost a hideous game to Cleveland, 19-1, looked lost.

Then the Yanks come out for the second half and take three straight from the world champion White Sox, ending Jose Contreras' 17-game win streak in the process. They won their fourth straight last night, beating the Mariners 4-3, despite three errors by Alex Rodriguez...

...who continues to be one of the most fascinating players in baseball. He may be the greatest athlete in the game, but his head is seriously messed up. (How's that for fancy writing? "Seriously messed up.") He's got 20 home runs and 68 RBIs, but by his standards, those numbers—and his .284 batting average—are unimpressive. And, of course, there's the clutch-hitting problem....and he's now committed more errors than he did all last year.

A-Rod's struggles are only magnified by the fact that he plays next to Derek Jeter, who's having a magnificent season—hitting .343, fielding brilliantly, quietly leading his team. Jeter is the most confident man in sports, I think. A-Rod has so many negative thoughts buzzing around his head head, you can practically see him try to shake them away. It's one reason why, despite the fact that he's making $25 million a year, I feel a little sorry for A-Rod, and I'd like to see him exorcise his demons. The man is not having fun....and trying to get your head straight in front of 50,000 fans every night can't be easy. Can anyone say Chuck Knoblauch?

But the race between the Yankees and the Red Sox—now, that's fun. It's never easy between these two teams... Don't you just know that this season is going to go right down to the wire?  ¶ 9:08 AM 5 comments

  Poor Joe Sheesh. I go away for one day and a theological debate erupts on the blog. Well, that's what I love about you folks. There's no predicting what you'll say...

Meantime, I completely forgot to ask if anyone else read the Times piece on Joe Lieberman that ran over the weekend?

The article says....

...These are down days for Mr. Lieberman, the onetime Democratic nominee for vice president who, six years later, finds himself fighting to save his career amid a strenuous effort by antiwar activists in his own party to dislodge him. Friends say his predicament has left Mr. Lieberman nervous, dispirited and angry, a portrait of a politician stunned to face opponents as passionate in their loathing of his principles as he is proud of them.

Oh, please. The tragic Joe Lieberman? I'm not buying it; it's another example of how old media really doesn't get the blogosphere. My gosh, a senator who's consistently abandoned his party when personal ambition tempted him—remember all that talk about how Lieberman might become a cabinet official in the Bush administration?—facing a primary challenge. I'm shocked.

And I'm bemused by that line, "a politician stunned to face opponents as passionate in their loathing of his principles as he is proud of them." The implication—unintentional, I think—is that Lieberman's opponents are unprincipled. Hmmm. Lieberman's opponents dislike his overweening ambition and they oppose his support for the war. It is, perhaps, Lieberman's lack of principles they dislike.

Then there's this:

Mr. Lieberman, who seemed slow to recognize the seriousness of Mr. Lamont’s challenge, also appears taken aback by the ferocity of the onslaught, particularly from liberal blogs. To Mr. Lieberman’s camp, the bloggers embody what his longtime friend Lanny Davis calls “the demonizing, hating, virulent, character-assassinating left of the Democratic Party.”

Mr. Lieberman began, “Some of the vituperations, some of the extremity of the language and anger,” before his voice trailed off. He paused for a second and started again: “They’re describing a person who is not me.” Colleagues have approached him on the Senate floor to console him, asking how he is holding up, as if he is sick or experiencing some trauma.

You see a lot in the MSM about the "ferocity" of the bloggers' attacks on Joe Lieberman. The funny thing is that you don't actually see any examples of that ferocity. It's as if the language is so horrible, it's unprintable. But later in the piece, some of it is printed. At a parade, Lieberman is called a "warmonger," a "Bush lover," and a "turncoat."

Gasp!

Joe Lieberman has been one of the most passionate, not to mention earliest, supporters of the war in Iraq, and he phrases his support for the war in a very high-minded way. But the war is an obscenity, and it's no surprise that people feel strongly about it. A senator who vigorously promotes war ought to be able to handle being called a warmonger.

Let us not forget, either, that Lieberman got into politics as an anti-Vietnam activist, and that in politics he has never hesitated to play dirty when he felt it necessary. Remember Lieberman's 1988 attack ads against incumbent senator Lowell Weicker? As the New Haven Independent puts it, Lieberman's commercials "inaugurated a new era in Connecticut of low-grade personal TV attack ads that belittle opponents, make fun of their appearance or magnify minor or out-of-context portions of their record." So when Lieberman says that "they're describing a person who is not me," he's either acting on a selective memory, or he's come to believe his own press.

By the way, this piece was written by a guy named Mark Leibovich, who's been doing a lot of political profiles lately. (His takedown of Nancy Pelosi was brutal.) Leibovich writes with a lot of color and flair, and even though I think he got this piece wrong, he's clearly a reporter to keep your eye on.
  ¶ 8:37 AM 1 comments

  Quote of the Day "Guys, I've got to go to church."

—Yankee Mariano Rivera talking to reporters after the 400th save of his remarkable career.  ¶ 7:49 AM 17 comments

  Monday Morning Zen


Water over sand, Stingray Beach, Floreanna Island, Galapagos  ¶ 7:42 AM 6 comments

  I Get Reviewed After my first book, I promised myself that I would no longer read reviews.

It was a necessary step. Because of the unattractive controversy that preceded it, American Son got some pretty brutal write-ups. I will never forget standing on a subway platform at 79th Street in Manhattan, leafing through Esquire magazine and finding a little squib about the book. It was about three sentences long and concluded with something like, "American Son is the work of a writer devoid of what his former boss epitomized: class." Ouch. Well, more than that—I was so upset, I felt sick to my stomach and started to shake.

(The review was unsigned, and in my shock I couldn't help but think, At least I had the class to put my name to what I wrote.)

(And in my anger, I couldn't help but remember that before John's death, Esquire had published a satire of John's infamous semi-naked editor's letter photo, a series of fake nudes of John, which deeply upset him. Consistency, apparently, was not one of the magazine's virtues.)

Bad reviews are a character-building experience, but sometimes you wonder if you really need all that character.

Anyway, my self-denial lasted all the way to my second book, which got some nice reviews and some which thought it was too critical of Larry Summers. I was intrigued by the latter ones, which were invariably written by people who were without the benefit of actually knowing what was going at Harvard.

(See...those reviews still irk!)

But yesterday, my day was lifted by two lovely comments.

In a rather tough review of Harry Lewis' Excellence Without a Soul, Martha Nussbaum, writing in the Times Literary Supplement, included this digression: "The reader who looks for a balanced assessment of Summers and his tenure would do well to read Richard Bradley’s excellent Harvard Rules, which offers real insight into the personae and their ideas, with a lively and well-written narrative."

Thank you, professor—that is much appreciated.

Also yesterday I received a letter from a reader of American Son (four years after the book was published!).

I always enjoy getting letters from readers, because they are almost universally positive. Frequently, too, they are far more interesting than what the critics say, which is often a variation on, "If I had written this book, it would be better." When American Son came out, I received hundreds of letters, and did my best to answer them all. They raised my spirits at a time when I was getting beaten like a drum.

The letter yesterday came from...well, let me quote.

"I am a 41-year-old hair salon owner who has encountered many challenges along the way. My profession like many is an ever changing one. Last night I finished reading your book 'American Son.' John's story had to be told. As an ordinary American without privilege and access I have always believed John Kennedy was a fortunate man with all the tools needed at his disposal....You helped to put light upon this man, to show his frailties, problems and troubles, making this icon a very human man. You were able to allow this man the dignity anyone deserves but still tell an honest story.

...You may wonder how 'American Son' would be relevant to a salon owner on Long Island. There have been many times I have questioned my actions as a leader of a team, tried to bring my team together outside the salon to make us work happier inside the salon. Sometimes feeling inadequate I have often pounded myself for mistakes that I made. Situations that could have been handled better. You and John's story helped me realize that even men of John's caliber can sometimes 'not be correct' in handling everything that may arise. I can forgive my own mistakes and learn from them....."

Every one takes something different from a book, and that is part of the joy of writing; people always find meaning in it that you never intended. A letter like the one above means as much to me as those generous words from Martha Nussbaum.

Writing books for a living can be hard. Such letters help make it a little easier.  ¶ 9:14 AM 8 comments

  More on Harvard's Missing Money The Crimson follows up on Zach Seward's piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, which reported that Harvard donors were withholding $390 million in gifts due to anger over the ouster of Larry Summers.

The Crimson's take is decidedly more cautious about this than the Journal.

For one thing, it discounts the donation of Larry Ellison, thereby reducing that number to $265 million. (Adding David Rockefeller's $10 million, Marcella Bombarieri in the Globe has $275 million.)

For another thing, the gifts now sound a little less in-the-bag than the Journal suggested.

Mort Zuckerman's spokesman released this statement: “Mr. Zuckerman had several conversations with Larry Summers. They had neither a final understanding of the project nor a final commitment, or a final agreement. But Mr. Zuckerman looks forward to working again with the new leadership at Harvard.”

Hmmm. So you couldn't really say that Zuckerman is withholding money, because he'd never really agreed to give it in the first place.

An e-mailer yesterday suggested that Seward was manipulated by proponents of Larry Summers, or perhaps Summers himself, into writing the story, as it continues the theme that Summers has endorsed that his departure is an enormous loss to the university about which everyone is outraged except for the nutters in FAS.

Remember, it was Marty Peretz in the New Republic who wrote a few weeks back, "I know of at least three gifts in the $100 million range that were very likely to materialize and now are dicey."

Summers is gone, but the debate about him and the meaning of his presidency lingers. So far, the advantage goes to his proponents: They are angry, they feel wronged, and their sense of being wronged inspires them to action. As a result, they are having a profound impact on shaping the conventional wisdom about what kind of president Larry Summers was and why he was ousted.

The world of politics and powerbrokers versus the world of academia, indeed.

____________________________________________________________

P.S. The Financial Times plays the story aggressively with the headline, "Harvard Faces Donor Backlash," but the actual story is, again, more cautious than the Journal piece.

  ¶ 8:59 AM 9 comments

  At Harvard, Change Is Gonna Come No, wait—it's here.

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2024 15:58:11 -0400
To: "House Masters":;
From: Benedict Gross
Subject: Announcement

Dear Colleagues:

I write with the news that Pat O'Brien will be taking a personal
leave of absence from the College, effective August 1, 2006.

Pat accomplished a remarkable amount in her two years as Deputy
Dean. Working closely with me, Pat recruited a talented staff and
led the senior staff in developing common goals and priorities. The
current initiatives to create better student programs and community
space - from the cafe in Lamont, to the student organization center
in Hilles, to the pub in Loker Commons - would never have advanced
without her efforts. Pat was also instrumental in establishing the
new Office for Advising Programs, the on-line registration and
enrollment systems, and the funding for the new summer programs in
science and engineering.

During her leave, Pat will continue to serve in the role as
Co-Master of Currier House with her husband, Joe Badaracco.

I am grateful for her dedicated service to our students and faculty.
The College will miss her.


Benedict H. Gross
Leverett Professor of Mathematics
Dean of Harvard College   ¶ 5:05 PM 3 comments

  Another Thought Regarding Summers and the Donations Responding to Zachary Seward's Wall Street Journal piece detaling $400 million in donations that allegedly fell through over donor anger regarding Summers' ouster, an e-mailer writes:

First of all, and most important, none of these gifts is described as a pledge. Summers was president for five years and apparently failed to bring any of these to the point of a firm commitment. People renege on pledges too, but very rarely. "Reneging" is not the right word for saying to someone sitting in your office that you hope to do something or want to do something, and then not doing it. Happens all the time. Of course ex post facto you can describe your supposed change of heart very grandiosely. To make a fair assessment of Summers's impact here you would have to know how much money in vaguely promised gifts fail to materialize in an ordinary year --- not $0, to be sure.

Second, I wonder if Seward is not being used here by the machinery that has an interest in puffing Summers at Harvard's expense. Dirty business but of course perfectly consistent with Summers's way of doing things.

Third, a president's impact on fundraising is the difference between what he raises that wouldn't have happened otherwise and what he fails to raise that would have happened with any kind of normal stewardship. There were people with a lot of money who thought Summers had to go because he was having a terrible impact on fundraising. Mrs. Loker happily gave Rudenstine and Knowles $70M (I think it was) for the Widener renovations, on top of what she had done a few years earlier for Loker Commons, but was offended by Summers, for example. It would take a lot better evidence than this article provides before one could fairly describe Summers as a great fundraiser --- remember, Rudenstine was raising money at a rate of $1M/day.

Fourth, the specifics. Ellison you should just leave aside, who knows what is really going on there. Zuckerman is clearly happy to say anything to stir this pot as his own writings demonstrate. Smith is a difficult man, a very rich one to be sure, but one for whom I would want to see the word "pledge" in writing before I started counting the money. The surprising one in that group is Rockefeller, not a man given to pettiness. I wonder if Seward has that story in full -- even for a Rockefeller, giving the place $10M is not exactly a vocal statement that you are really really unhappy with Harvard.

Finally, it is amusing to see so many people acknowledging that Summers was fired when the official story is that he resigned and the Corporation accepted his resignation with regret. If Summers resigned on his own initiative, shouldn't they be angry with Summers? Are these folks telling us that they don't believe the official version of current Harvard events --- any more than those who became fed up with the past five years' official distortions ever did?   ¶ 3:30 PM 3 comments

  Butt Away If, like me, you were struck by the elegant technique of Zinedine Zidane's headbutt in the World Cup final, you might like this web game, in which you too get the chance to play Zidane...and headbutt all the Italians you want.

Love those sound effects....  ¶ 1:59 PM 1 comments

  You Post, I Respond A poster below takes issue with my post about Harvard and donations this morning. The poster raises some serious questions, so let me address them...which I will in between his (italics added) criticisms.

As you said about Seward's article... your article would have been stronger if...
1. You knew what you were talking about (about some things). For instance, Zuckerman's media properties have little to do with his wealth. Boston Properties, which is near an all time high, has everything to do with it. Where did you get "by all accounts"...what accounts? The media properties are privately held and you have no idea how they are doing.
People tell you things, but that does not necessarily mean they are correct. For instance, in your recent Boston magazine piece, a number of quotes (while I'm sure they were accurate on your part) were complete fabrications (i.e. not true) on the part of those who gave them to you. They had an agenda and you fell for it. We expect more from a good journalist like you.

It's true that when people give you anonymous quotes, you're more susceptible to manipulation than when they go on the record (said the blogger to the anonymous poster). You try to minimize that possibility by seeing if other people are saying the same things, by tending not to use the most extreme quotes, by including other points of view when they exist, and by pushing people to go on the record.

Nonetheless, I'd be happy to hear what specific quotes the poster had in mind. Seriously. If you think that something in the Boston Magazine piece was off-base, I welcome your commentary. Even if it's anonymous.

I know that Mort's profits come from Boston Properties, but his losses seem to come from his media holdings, U.S. News & World Report and the Daily News, both of which have endured repeated staff cuts, losses in advertising revenue, and shrinking circulation. By the published accounts I've read, anyway.


2.You said: "He could go to Mort Zuckerman and say, I want $100 million, and I want it for x, which is a hell of a way of adding to the president's discretionary spending." Huh? I think you are mixing things up. This has nothing to do with the President's discretionary spending.

Okay, let me rephrase for clarity, since, admittedly, I used the term "discretionary spending" casually. What I meant was that such gifts, given to support Summers' specific priorities, were a great way for him to fund what was important to him, and a means of increasing his own power. If, for example, you have donors who are loyal primarily to you rather than to the university, and are giving to fund your priorities...then, on the off-chance that you get fired, you can argue that your firing is bad for Harvard.

3. To give you an example of how wrong jounalists can be, Seward got it exactly wrong when he said Byron Wien was a major Harvard giver. Where did Seward get that from?

Got me? Zach, if you're reading this...

And finally, here is what I said last month (and was chastised for saying it because "it wasn't true")" You might be surprised to learn that Larry is (still) held in very high esteem by most of those alumni who contribute large sums of money to the university. Many of them think the FAS faculty members are nothing more than whiners who are completely out of touch with the real world. I know this may be hard for you to believe, but it is true."

I can't speak to whether "most" of the alumni who give large sums of money hold Larry in high esteem, but I am sure that many do, and I don't think I've ever said otherwise. I'm sure that your description of their attitude regarding FAS is also true, if ironic; the idea of Wall Street financiers pulling down seven- and eight-figure salaries, helicoptering to the Hamptons, living high above Park Avenue, being in touch with "the real world" is hilarious.

Nonetheless, there's certainly a big problem for Harvard here in terms of the common perception—misperception, I would argue—of the faculty as a bunch of out-of-touch lefty loonies, and I have long argued that the Harvard faculty ought to make a serious, sustained and concerted effort to address this caricature.

One example that complicates the poster's thesis: Harry Lewis is not exactly a "whiner" who's "completely out of touch with the real world," as his book, Excellence Without a Soul, showed...and yet, he was one of Summers' fiercest critics.  ¶ 1:35 PM 9 comments

  "Non, il ne regrette rien "
Zidane apologized yesterday—or did he?

As the New York Times reports, speaking on French television network Canal Plus, Zidane said that the Italian Materazzi had cursed his mother and sister.

(Materazzi denies that he said anything about Zidane's mother, but is mum on the sister question.)

“I tried not to listen to him, but he repeated them several times,” Zidane said about Materazzi’s comments.

Zidane then apologized several times, with a particular emphasis on children.

He then added, “The reaction must be punished, but if there had been no provocation, there would have been no reaction,” he said.

(I couldn't agree more, by the way, and I am struck by how many of the posters on this board seem to think that Zidane's unsportmanlike behavior was outrageous—outrageous!—while Materazzi's slurs were part of the game, standard operating procedure, nothing to get upset about. Talk about a double standard....)

As Zidane rather eloquently put it, "Sometimes words are harder than blows."

There are so many interesting things to discuss about this incident and its ramifications that go beyond the simple question of whether Zidane erred—obviously, he did—so let me just mention a few of them, which are noted in this well done BBC News story.

—Patrick Lozes, the president of an umbrella group of black French organizations compared Zidane's frustration to that of disenfranchised immigrants in the suburbs of Paris. "Why do we come to understand Zidane," he asked, "but not the young people in the suburbs?"

—The left-wing daily Liberation noted that trash talking, in the words of some posters, has always existed, and why did Zidane fall into what one of his teammates called "an Italian trap"?
(A wonderful description.)

—Zidane also spoke out against racism in soccer, noting the racist comments of an Italian right-wing politician that France had "sacrificed its identity by fielding a team of blacks, Islamists and communists."

"Is that not worse than what I did?" he asked. "It shocked me."

In a curious way, Zidane's act of self-immolation makes him a far more human and likeable figure than otherwise he would have been—a greater figure, in some ways, than the soccer genius who might have led his team to the Cup.

He reminds me of that scene at the end of the Kevin Costner film, Tin Cup, in which Costner has only to par the 18th hole (if I remember correctly) to win the US Open. But Costner refuses to take the easy way out; instead of settling for the par, he tries to drive the ball over a water obstacle. He drops the ball in the water; then does it again, and again, and again. It's a stubborn, stupid move, no question; he loses the tournament. But in its humanity, its sense that some things are more important than just winning, there is something great and memorable about Costner's defiance, something that is more interesting than just the desire to be "#1!". (That's why Michael Jordan, for all his unparalleled greatness, was never that interesting a human being. Same with Pete Sampras. Same with Tiger Woods.)

And so it is with Zidane. Flawed, tragic, self-defeating...yes, yes, yes, absolutely, and thank God for it. Sports has enough automatons. The world is a better, more interesting, more human place with people like Zidane in it.



  ¶ 9:36 AM 8 comments

  At Harvard, Money Goes Missing Zach Seward reports in the Wall Street Journal this morning that "at least four major donations to Harvard, totaling $390 million, have been scrapped or put on hold since Mr. Summers announced his resignation in February."

The gifts included:

—$115 million from Larry Ellison
—$100 million from Mort Zuckerman to fund a neuroscience institute
—$100 million from Richard Smith, class of '46 and a former member of the Corporation, to fund a 500,000 square foot science complex in Allston.
—$75 million from David Rockefeller to fund undergraduate travel abroad

Seward writes: "The donor backlash could hamstring the university's plans for a long-delayed capital campaign. It also suggests that the internal debate continues over the resignation of Mr. Summers. Last month, wealthy alumni voiced their frustrations with the university's governing board for not standing by Mr. Summers during two private dinners at the Harvard Club in Manhattan."

A few thoughts.

This is obviously not good news for Harvard. But is it as bad as Seward suggests? I'm not so sure.

First, Seward is taking Ellison at his word that the withdrawal of his donation is truly related to Summers, and given that Ellison seemed to be going south on the gift well before Summers left, I'm not sure it's correct to attribute the loss of that money to Summers' departure. He is also taking Zuckerman at his word when, by all accounts, Mr. Zuckerman's media properties are not doing well. Zuckerman may simply not be in the mood to give $100 million just now.

Second, it's unclear whether those gifts are permanently withdrawn, or whether the donors in question just want to wait until a new president is chosen, as any large donor probably would, before allotting their money. After all, plans are on hold, priorities may differ—things are up in the air. Why write your check now, before enjoying the sumptuous pleasure of a new president kissing your ass?

Third, Seward's article would have been stronger if he had spoken to alumni who were withholding gifts because of Summers and are now returning to the fold. Seward does note that the percentage of alumni giving dropped from 48 to 40% during Summers' tenure, but claims that "Mr. Summers's critics weren't donors on the same scale as those now withholding funds." I'm not sure what this claim is based on.

The piece would also be stronger if it took note of Summers' initiatives that are begun but not fully funded—the stem cell institute, for example.

But I'm sure that Seward is right and that there are some alumni, particularly older ones, who are pissed off about this whole thing—angry at the faculty, angry at the Corporation, angry at Harvard. (And we have all heard the rumors that, in private meetings, Larry Summers is stoking this anger with indirect criticism of the Corporation and the repeated suggestion that Harvard is scared to change.)

This shouldn't be a surprise; in fact, it's a direct corollary of Summers' leadership style. The former president consciously decided that he was not going to spend his time raising money in relatively small amounts—half a million here, a million there—but would target a handful of individuals for extremely large gifts. This was a fundamental break from Harvard tradition; Summers was essentially saying that raising participation numbers was secondary to landing a few nine-figure gifts.

From a pure financial viewpoint, in the short term, that theory may well be right. Whether in the long term it's good for the university—after all, alumni give because they feel invested in the Harvard community, and their gift furthers that commitment—is another matter.

Summers' approach to fundraising surely played to his strengths—connections with the super-rich and the ability to present a compelling vision of a scientific future—while downplaying his weaknesses: poor social skills, an inability to feign interest in anyone else, impatience, rudeness, contempt for those less important than he.

Nor was it unintentional, I think, that this fundraising approach also had the consequence of adding to Summers' own power. He could go to Mort Zuckerman and say, I want $100 million, and I want it for x, which is a hell of a way of adding to the president's discretionary spending.

If these donors don't come back, then their gifts were more about their relationship with Larry Summers than their commitment to Harvard. And that, I think, would be typical of the Summers presidency from beginning to end.  ¶ 9:01 AM 4 comments

  Zidane at Play


Here's the Frenchman scoring a truly astounding goal in 2001...  ¶ 8:23 AM 2 comments

  Zidane to Speak Is the tide of public sentiment turning in Zidane's favor? His sponsors have rallied round him, and Adidas is actually launching a website so that supporters can thank him.
The people of France are supporting him, and so is President Jacques Chirac.

On the other hand, in what seems to me like a remarkably stupid public relations move, the head of FIFA, Sepp Blatter, is talking about stripping Zidane of the Golden Ball award, given to the best player in the World Cup. This is wrong on so many levels...

Meanwhile, the Italian, Materazzi, is clearly on the hot seat. "I did insult him, it's true," Materazzi said in Tuesday's Gazzetta dello Sport. "But I categorically did not call him a terrorist. I'm not cultured and I don't even know what an Islamic terrorist is."

Sound credible to you?

More evidence of Materazzi's preferred style of play—dirty—is coming out. He was suspended for two months for punching an opponent in the face in 2004—without provocation—and was roundly criticized for a brutal tackle on a Swedish player in 2005.

And according to Africa's Mail & Guardian, "One Italian senator even suggested that Materazzi -- also sent off three times while playing for Everton in the 1998-99 season -- didn't merit selection for the Italian team because of his physical style."

Meanwhile, the far-right vice-president of the Italian Senate stoked anti-French feeling in the country on Tuesday, branding the French team as "blacks, Islamists and Communists".

Roberto Calderoli, head of the right-wing popular Northern League party, refused to retract earlier comments in which he hailed Italy's defeat of France in Sunday's World Cup final as "a victory for Italian identity".

"When I say that France's team is composed of blacks, Islamists and Communists, I am saying an objective and evident thing," Calderoli was quoted on Tuesday as saying by the Ansa news agency.

Italy's all-white team, from a largely devout Catholic populace, had won against "a France team which sacrificed its own identity by lining up blacks, Islamists and Communists to get results," Calderoli had said on Sunday.

Zidane will be speaking about the incident on Canal Plus television (whatever that is)tonight at 8 PM European time. Does anyone else get the feeling that Italy may have won the Cup, but it's losing the war?  ¶ 7:55 AM 19 comments

  If Italian Footballers Played in the NFL A writer for SI discusses the problem of flopping in soccer...and I quote.

Zinedine Zidane is not a flopper or a whiner or a moaner. I have never seen him pull one of those scenes from the last act of La Boheme, enacting his death tableau on the field after the merest brush of contact. I haven't seen him lying there at death's door while they go through with the most ridiculous of all dramas, the entry of the stretcher.

Imagine if the NFL were like that. Half a dozen stretchers called for during the course of the game, whereupon the nearly deceased leaps off it, shakes off the very fingers of the Evil One and trots back onto the field. Maybe Zidane was tired of all this, of this travesty, which rewards all the things that we were once taught were cowardly, but can be used to great advantage in this game.

So Zidane slammed a guy. He lost it. Writers all over the world are competing with themselves to heap scorn on France's greatest player. You know something? I don't blame him for getting sore. Almost every time I could find him on the screen, he had someone tugging at his shirt, tripping him or messing with him in some sneaky way.

The problem is he doesn't hit the canvas as the rest of those prima donnas do. So the ref must figure nothing is happening. Sure, he should have held off on the head butt, but to put the defeat of his team on his shoulders is a reach....

You can read the rest of the piece here. Obviously, I agree with it.  ¶ 4:42 PM 5 comments

  On Materazzi and Iago An e-mailer writes with a quote from Othello and a thought to follow:

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.
William Shakespeare, "Othello", Act 3 scene 3

The hypocritical Iago speaks these words and eventually turns Othello, a racial/cultural outsider, into a fit of jealousy toward his wife Desdemona. Materazzi similarly played on Zidane's insecurities to make him snap. Iago/Materazzi were villanous, but ultimately we must hold individuals accountable when they act without reason and integrity. Right?  ¶ 10:45 AM 21 comments

  Sometimes It's Hard to be a Deer Like when you're being eaten by a truly large Florida alligator. (Thanks to Lucy Keith for sending these photos.)



  ¶ 9:54 AM 9 comments

  Zidane = Brad Pitt? Did the Italian player Materazzi call Zidane's sister a whore, and/or did he call Zidane a terrorist, thus prompting the headbutt felt round the world?

(Materazzi has denied this, but tellingly, he has not volunteered what he did say.)

More to the point, do you care?

I've been struck by some of the posters below who argue, essentially, so what if Materazzi did say those things? It's just soccer. Calling an Algerian who's appeared in anti-racism campaigns in France a "terrorist," that's just part of the game. The real crime was Zidane's, for committing such an ugly foul.

But I'm not so sure. Does responsibility lie with the person who lost his temper...or the person who deliberately provoked that loss of temper? This is not such an easily answered question.

We don't have all the information yet, but it certainly sounds like Materazzi was doing everything he could to infuriate Zidane, from physical fouls to truly ugly verbal harassment. I'm sure he didn't expect to provoke a headbutt...but he certainly was trying to cause Zidane to foul him. From Materazzi's point of view, the greater the loss of control, the better.

It all reminds me of the climactic scene in David Fincher's dark and disturbing film, Seven. Kevin Spacey plays a twisted serial killer who wants to be killed by a hot-headed cop, played by Brad Pitt. (It's the grand finale to a sick scheme, the seventh of seven murders that Spacey has meticulously planned.) And so he manipulates Pitt in a vile way, using his understanding of Pitt's psychology, manipulating the policeman, pushing his buttons...until Pitt snaps, producing exactly the result that Spacey was seeking.

The film suggests that, even though Pitt's action (like Zidane's) can not be justified or condoned, it is understandable...and that the ultimate responsibility lies with Kevin Spacey, the man who deliberately sparked this loss of control. Spacey may be dead, but that's what he wanted; Brad Pitt is the real victim.

Materazzi may have been headbutted, but that's what he wanted. Zidane—goaded, insulted, harassed, until the better angels of his nature gave way— is the real victim here. He deserves, not our outrage, but our sympathy.  ¶ 8:50 AM 13 comments

  So That's What It Means "When Larry Summers tells me I'm an idiot, I really think it means he loves me."

—Harvard economist Edward Glaeser, on WGBH's show, "Summers Era Ends at Harvard"  ¶ 8:18 AM 0 comments

  Brasilian Culture Getting Crazy



The new video from Brasilian group Cansei De Ser Sexy (Tired of Being Sexy) simultaneously celebrates and parodies not only music videos, but also music. Some will find this video for their song, "Let's Make Love and Listen to Death from Above" inscrutable. Others...genius. A must-watch for anyone interested in globalization. Or dancing.  ¶ 8:05 AM 3 comments

  Zidane's Sister a Whore? A Brasilian TV station hired a lip reader to see what the Italian Materazzi said to Zidane that sent the Frenchman into such a rage, he headbutted the Italian to the ground and was tossed out of the game.

O Globo reports that Materazzi called Zidane's sister a "whore" and said that Zidane was a "dirty terrorist."

Oh, the shame of Italy....  ¶ 5:11 PM 11 comments

  Regina Herzlinger Comes to Summers' Defense In an article in the New Republic, HBS professor of business administration Regina Herzlinger comes to the defense of Harvard's departed president.

Ms. Herzlinger's article would appear to be HBS' way of rolling out the welcome wagon for Summers. It is generously reasoned.

I'd like to deconstruct a bit...beginning at the beginning.

Early last month Harvard University's President Lawrence Summers revealed his true feelings about the continued absence of a ROTC program on the campus. "I look forward to the day when it will be a matter of routine, and not a matter for comment when a president of an Ivy League university is a strong and active supporter of the ROTC program; that will be a great day for our universities and for our country." His remarks underscore a triple tragedy: that Summers could not come out of the closet on ROTC until after his "resignation" in February; that Summers was forced to "resign"; and that the Harvard University faculty refuse to permit an ROTC program. All three can be traced to one root cause--the absence of presidential leadership at America's premier colleges and universities.

Curious that Herzlinger deems this remark remarkable. The comment itself is self-serving on Summers' part, since it is entirely routine for a president of an Ivy League university to support ROTC. (Could Herzlinger name one who opposes ROTC?) Now, if an Ivy League president came out and blasted ROTC—that would be news.

What would be more admirable would be for such a president—Summers, for example—to explain why he thinks it's acceptable for an employer who discriminates to recruit at Harvard. This discrimination is the only obstacle to ROTC's return—it's not a lack of patriotism, nor hippie opposition to the military—and yet, Summers never addressed it, not once. Professor Herzlinger might note that the law school, which she seems to admire, has vigorously fought military recruiting on its campus. And one wonders if this HBS professor would support recruitment at HBS by businesses which refuse to hire gays, or blacks, or women....

(Incidentally, is Hertzlinger's use of the phrase "come out of the closet" deliberate? If so, it's gay-baiting masquerading as bad writing, or vice-versa, perhaps.)

And finally, won't someone please, please mention that for all his carping about ROTC, Larry Summers never actually did anything to bring it back to Harvard? (Oh, all right....)

To call a man a hero simply for issuing soundbites feels like grade inflation.

And speaking of which....

Lawrence Summers was a throwback to a prior era of university presidents--men with big egos who had big ideas about the world and the appropriate roles of institutions of higher education within them. In an era when politically correct, genteel, and deferential college and university leaders live in big houses from which they beg for money, Summers was an intellectual and personal brawler.

I'll grant that Summers was a brawler, perhaps even a bully. And I'll concede that he had a big ego. Maybe even an enormous one. I'm just not sure that he had big ideas about the world and the role of institutions within it. What were they? Well...

Some might call Summers's ideas about higher education radical--he wanted to reintroduce rigor to the undergraduate curriculum, to the process of determining student grades, to how the place was run...

This phrase—"some might call.."—is what some might call a straw man, a term I learned in 12th grade logic class. Because let's face it, no one would call reintroducing rigor to the curriculum or cutting down on grade inflation "radical." I would call it boilerplate, or perhaps common sense. But if it is to be the dangerous lefties who toppled Summers, then their aversion to rigor and excellence must be—well, not established—but asserted, disingenuously, early on.

He was aggressive too, firing deans he viewed as ineffective and chastising faculty who missed their classes....

That would be one of each, actually, though Herzlinger uses the plural to buttress her argument. (That 12th grade logic class does come in handy.)

True, he fired dean Bill Kirby...whom he hired in the first place. Oops. And he only fired Kirby a year after he intended to, because his own remarks about women in science made it impossible for him to fire the dean when he wanted to. Ooops.

And true, he yelled at Cornel West for missing classes...although he was wrong, and as I wrote in my book, West hadn't missed classes, and was a beloved teacher.

But what are facts?

Summers's most important initiative was to raise billions to integrate the famously decentralized units of the university--every tub of which stands on its own bottom--to form hands-on, interdisciplinary laboratories to help unlock the biggest scientific puzzle of the twenty-first century, medicine.

Billions. Hmm. Where, exactly, are these billions? (Ask Larry Ellison.) Does Herzlinger have any idea? Does she even care?

And what does, say, creating a new stem cell center have to do with integrating the ETOB system? (Nothing, of course.) It's not as if interdisciplinary centers didn't already exist at Harvard. And how's that capital campaign going? (Oh, wait....)

It was also his biggest mistake. The grandees at the Faculty of Arts and Sciences gave him no-confidence votes because they feared that this initiative would draw support away from them to the biological and chemical sciences and Harvard's professional schools of business, law, and medicine. They wanted no part of a president who actually dared to lead.

Here, at last, are our villains: the "grandees" at FAS. Those "grandees" are both scary—watch it, they'll get you!—and scared. They fear a "leader"! Although, in truth, I don't think that even Larry Summers' defenders—well, other than this one—would call him much of a leader. The results would seem to suggest the converse. But never mind. These grandees don't seem to fear Derek Bok. Does that mean Bok isn't a leader?

There's more—Herzlinger goes on to compare Summers to Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson—but what's the point? Herzlinger isn't interested in logic or facts. (Because no one who cared about facts could write the article she did.)

What seems to motivate her is a contempt for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences—a contempt whose motivation I can not know, but which appears to be based on ignorance. Larry Summers, who shared that contempt, is going to fit right in at HBS.

  ¶ 2:19 PM 0 comments

First, I should say that Prof. Thomas posted his message before I had an opportunity
to explain to him what happened. We have since spoken and, although he is justifiably
frustrated by how we handled this, he told me he appreciated the explanation.

We had produced a taped report that was highly critical of Lawrence Summers. Most
of it was drawn from interviews with Daniel Fisher and Judith Ryan. Basic fairness
dictated that we follow that taped piece with an on set discussion that included
a Summers defender. We had initially asked Prof. Ed Glaeser to appear alone. We 
later reconsidered and invited Prof. Thomas to appear as well. In a mistake on our
part, we did not communicate this to Ed until the last minute and he refused to 
come on the show with Richard. A last minute attempt to find an alternative Summers
defender from within the FAS faculty was unsuccessful. Stuck in a predicament of
our own making, our fairness concerns prompted us to go forward with Glaeser alone.
Glaeser did have time issues and that prevented us from pushing back the taping 
time, which would have given us more time to find a better resolution.

I regret that we did not better communicate with Prof. Glaeser and Prof. Thomas,
but our mistakes were honest and not in bad faith. Naturally, having Prof. Thomas
on the set with Prof. Glaeser would have been preferable, but I believe what we 
aired was fair. It is available for viewing on our website at www.wgbh.org/greaterboston.

Sincerely,

Jeff Keating
Associate Producer
WGBH