Shots in the Dark

The Swiss won’t extradite him because, as they reasonably point out, the US knew of his presence there for years and never bothered to do anything about it until a documentary made the LA prosecutor’s office look bad.

“He’s a free man,” Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said.

From the LA Times:

Specifically, the Swiss wanted to determine whether the 42 days Polanski already served in a Los Angeles jail would have been considered sufficient time served for having sex with a minor.

“Roman Polanski would not have decided to go to the film festival in Zürich in September 2009 if he had not trusted that the journey would not entail any legal disadvantages for him,” the Swiss justice ministry said.

The NY Times has some interesting info to add:

Ms. Widmer-Schlumpf said the Swiss government had rejected the extradition request in part because American authorities declined to provide confidential testimony from a January 2010 hearing on Mr. Polanski’s original sentencing agreement.

“If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation,” the Swiss Justice Ministry said in a statement.

As Polanski has long maintained, the judge in the original case was corrupt and planned to make a decision in order to attract good publicity for himself. Presumably the records the US declined to hand over would simply have established that.

As the NY Times pointed out last week, the LA court system is already under enormous fiscal pressure, thanks in part to the demands of celebrity trials.

How much taxpayer money has been wasted on this fiasco—a trial that even the victim doesn’t want?

The Los Angeles district attorney, Republican Steve Cooley, says he’s “surprised and disappointed” by the Swiss decision. (I’m sure the fact that he’s running for state attorney general has nothing to do with any of his decisionmaking.)

Now Cooley could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars more pursuing this matter—or give the taxpayers of California a break and recognize that there are more important cases to pursue. It’s time for this sham to end.

It wasn’t the greatest final—Spain looked better in its semi- against Germany, I think, and the Dutch played like thugs—but the better team won. And there’s no doubt that more and more Americans are into soccer—why else would the right-wing start attacking the game?—and that this month-long tournament is the world’s greatest sporting event. (Yes, better than the Olympics, and certainly better than the Super Bowl or World Series.) I’m going to miss the tournament. Barring some kind of major life change—always possible—look for me in Brasil in 2014.

Meantime, congrats to Spain!

And here’s a lovely moment between Spanish keeper Iker Casillas and his girlfriend, Sara Carbonero, who happens to be a TV reporter. Bueno, indeed.

Imagine if you were transported to a world where you were thought of as mindless prey and hunted for sport—a world filled with monsters armed with high-tech equipment who would slaughter as many of you as they could, and purely for fun. You’d wonder, as you desperately tried to stay alive, how a world capable of such sophistication could also be so primitive, so savage.

You probably think I’m talking about the new Predators movie, right?

Actually, no. I’m talking about here on Earth, pretty close to home—in the waters off Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, where I spent a lovely 4th of July weekend.

Martha’s Vineyard is a beautiful, idyllic place, but one great ugly gash scars the island and its good reputation: an annual shark-hunting “tournament,” officially called the “Monster Shark Tournament“—the name is copyrighted—and hosted by an organization of dubious legitimacy called the Boston Big Game Fishing Club.

Every year for a quarter-century now—much to Peter Benchley’s dismay, the tournament began a couple years after the publication of Jaws and the filming of the movie on Martha’s Vineyard—this tournament has resulted in the pointless killing of countless sharks, including this tiger shark, the “winning” catch a few years back. Tiger sharks are endangered, of course—all sharks are in massive species decline. They’re also beautiful underwater. Dead, they look—as this one does—not so good. You wouldn’t either.

The shark in question is extremely rare; killing it is just needless barbarism.

I can’t speak to why people participate in such a fiasco; perhaps they were mocked in the showers in high school. But there’s only reason why Martha’s Vineyard actively promotes the tournament: greed. It’s said to bring several million dollars into this already wealthy community. Surely there are better ways to promote tourism.

The Boston Big Game Fishing Club has a page of “facts” intended to counter the concerns of people like me. It would be funny if it weren’t so appalling.

For example:

10) Thresher, mako and porbeagle shark is similar to swordfish in texture and taste when grilled

Or this:

13) Even the non-edible portions of the shark are converted into organic fertilizer. Ever wonder where fish fertilizer comes from?

The organizers of this tournament claim that 97% of the sharks caught are returned to the water and suffer no consequences from this. The statistic is theirs, and the best that can be said of it is that it’s…convenient.

As a Humane Society article shows,

The fact is that at most tournaments, sharks are hooked, bled, suffocated, or repeatedly gaffed.
The sharks who are released often die due to stress or traumatizing injuries.

Certainly photographs of the tournament seems to show plenty of large sharks—whose numbers are plummeting—being carved up. Like, for example, the thresher shark below. (The two photos below are from an article, of sorts, on “Vice” magazine’s website.)

Thresher sharks, by the way, are endangered, have never attacked a human, and are (when alive) beautiful and graceful creatures.

The BBGFC blames opposition to the tournament on “vegans” (seriously) and the Humane Society, which has became a favored target of anti-environmental radicals.

Truth is, people who love sharks recognize their ecological importance and their natural beauty, and acknowledge, rather than denying, the fact that sharks are in danger of being wiped off the face of the planet by human ignorance and bloodlust.

Nice thumbs-up, Masshole.

Here’s some advice from the Humane Society website on how you can do your part to stop this slaughter.

Oak Bluffs Monster Shark Tournament — Martha’s Vineyard, MA
The Oak Bluffs Monster Shark Tournament is scheduled to occur July 22 - 24 in 2010. To help end this cruel contest for good, please contact the Oak Bluffs Harbor Advisory Committee and the Harbormaster of Oak Bluffs, Todd Alexander, and politely tell them to end the town’s policy of reserving the entire harbor for the Monster Shark Tournament and that you don’t want the tournament blemishing Oak Bluffs’ image of a beautiful resort community.

Oak Bluffs Harbor Advisory Committee
Harbormaster Todd Alexander
Oak Bluffs Marina
Box 1327
Oak Bluffs, MA 02557
[email protected]
508-693-4355

And not in a good way.

My friend Susan Casey has written a fascinating book, The Wave: In the Pursuit of the Rogues, Freaks and Giants of the Ocean, coming out on September 14th. Here’s a taste of it.

On the Daily Beast, Emily Brill reports that Harvard’s Jonathan Zittrain, founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, is a consistent critic of Apple—without disclosing that his center is funded by Apple’s rivals.

For example, a week after the iPad announcement last January, The Financial Times published an op-ed by Berkman Center founder and star professor Jonathan Zittrain critical of Apple, declaring: “iPhone thus remains tightly tethered to its vendor—the way that the Kindle is controlled by Amazon … Mr. Jobs ushered in the personal computer era and now he is trying to usher it out.”

What most readers don’t know is that the Berkman Center and many of its leading professors have financial and personal ties to Google and other tech companies—ties that are not disclosed when these academics speak or publish, and that I discovered after auditing a class with Zittrain….

This is a fascinating story. Brill audited a seminar that Zittrain gave at the Stanford Law School (she admits that she hoped to get a summer job at the Berkman Center, but did not).

What first struck me as odd about the course was its lavish catering. On January 4 the menu offered, among other choices, Mista Salad: Simple and Delicious Mixed Field Greens with Cucumbers and Ripe Tomatoes in a Light Vinaigrette, and Harvest Roasted Turkey with Oven Roasted Turkey Panini, Sage Aioli, Cranberry Chutney, and Munster Cheese.

When can a professor afford to offer his students such luscious fare?

When his class is funded by Microsoft, that’s when. But the students were never informed of that fact; Brill found out by asking the law school dean.

Brill reports that Zittrain is tight with powerful people in the Internet world, including Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google and a Berkman Center funder. He has also written in praise of Microsoft, another Berkman Center funder.

The Berkman Center seems anxious indeed about Brill’s report.

AT&T, currently the exclusive carrier of Apple’s iPhone (the product Zittrain loves to hate), has participated in just one Berkman project—an Internet Safety Technical Task Force that took place in 2008 and included 20 other companies and organizations. AT&T contributed $10,000.

On June 3, as I was reporting this piece, asking about the nature of Berkman’s funding, AT&T suddenly appeared on the Berkman Center’s website list of “current sponsors.” After I inquired about the change, on June 7 AT&T returned to the website’s “past supporter” list, but the center would not comment on why. AT&T spokesman Michael Balmoris said he has no idea why Berkman would list (or unlist) the company as a “current sponsor.”

And Zittrain himself proved less than helpful—strange behavior for an advocate of Internet transparency.

In repeated email and voice mail exchanges, Zittrain declined requests to answer questions about his personal corporate backing or speaking engagements. (Zittrain is listed on the Washington Speaker’s Bureau website, which quotes his speaking fee as between $15,000 and $25,000; he is also listed on the Monitor Talent Speaker’s Bureau website as available for consulting or keynote addresses. Both companies declined to comment.) He said he was feeling ill the week in June that we had scheduled for a phone interview, canceling it. I then asked Zittrain over email if he had a personal disclosure statement or policy. He answered that he could not “engage on this,” citing major surgery he had in May. After I learned he was back on the speaking circuit, I made several attempts to follow up by email and by phone. He continued to decline comment, citing his health and other “long-arranged” commitments.

To be fair, Brill did not note, but should have, that Zittrain has been ill at least as recently as last spring.

Zittrain has a blog, but he has not used it to respond to Brill’s article; the blog’s last post is dated June 28, and it’s written by people named Jennifer Halbleib, who appears to be a Stanford law student, and Elisabeth Oppenheimer, ditto. The last post authored by Zittrain is on June 3rd.

Zittrain also has a Twitter feed, but hasn’t written anything about the issue on that either.

Interestingly, he does promote genetic testing, which is a personal and business obsession of—wait for it—Sergey Brin. He even hyperlinks to 23andme, Brin’s DNA testing company.

Brill details the extent of Zittrain’s influence in the Internet policy and thinktank world and the great appeal he has among his students. She then writes,

No one has alleged that anyone at Harvard Law School has formulated opinions because he or she was paid to.

I wish Brill hadn’t shied away from the logical conclusion of this significant piece of journalism, because in fact, that’s exactly what her reporting suggests—that the Berkman Center is bought and paid for, that it is intellectually compromised by its corporate funding (which it doesn’t disclose to the public or its students), and that the people associated with the Center are using the Harvard brand to pimp themselves out to Internet giants and fashion a pretty cozy (in lots of ways) life for themselves.

It would be fascinating to consider if Zittrain’s attitudes towards Microsoft have changed and if there’s any apparent correlation between the evolution of his thinking and Microsoft’s funding of the Berkman Center, his course, et al.

Brill does point out that Harvard, inspired by the fiasco at the medical school, is working on a stronger conflict-of-interest policy, and that Harvard’s Laurence Lessig has been a forceful advocate of vigorous disclosure.

Nonetheless, this article raises serious questions about the credibility of the Berkman Center and the people associated with it.

________________________________________________________

In a sleazy piece of blogging, Fortune’s Philip Elmer-Dewitt attacks Brill personally, writing,

This is what passes for investigative journalism at The Daily Beast, the news and opinion website founded in 2008 by formerVanity Fair editor Tina Brown: a 1,900 word story attacking the credibility of one of the Internet’s leading intellectuals written by a publishing heiress whose longest previous work was a year-long blog…

Elmer-Dewitt owes Brill an apology.

The Times’ primary World Cup columnist goes ballistic (heh-heh) about Uruguayan striker Luis Suarez, who batted a ball out of the goal—with his hands—with about five seconds left to play in the Uruguay-Ghana match.

Suarez got red-carded and Ghana was awarded a penalty kick, which it missed, then losing in the penalty kick shootout.

He is banned for cheating the Ghanaians. If there were justice in soccer, if the banner that the teams march out to in every match — “My Game Is Fair Play” — meant anything, Suárez would be barred for the rest of this World Cup. And Uruguay would be out of it.

Nonsense. Every soccer player in the World would have done the exact same thing in the same situation. You sacrifice the penalty kick in order to save a sure goal, or else you lose for sure.

This isn’t even a question of sportsmanship. It’s just strategy. And in this case, it saved the game for Uruguay and put them in position to win.

“Very rarely, a few times in a lifetime, you open a book and when you close it again nothing can ever be the same. Walls have been pulled down, barriers broken, a dimension of feeling, of existence itself, has opened in you that was not there before. To the End of the Land is a book of this magnitude. David Grossman may be the most gifted writer I’ve ever read; gifted not just because of his imagination, his energy, his originality, but because he has access to the unutterable, because he can look inside a person and discover the unique essence of her humanity.”

—The writer Nicole Krauss, on David Grossman and his new novel, To the End of the Land.

The Guardian has a little fun with this, and rightly so:

And she doesn’t stop there. To read the book, she says, “is to have yourself taken apart, undone, touched at the place of your own essence; it is to be turned back, as if after a long absence, into a human being”. Hmm. As the blog Conversational Reading puts it, “I think I can live without having Grossman’s book touch me at the place of my own essence.”

The Guardian is asking readers to write the best similarly overblown blurb that they can—about The DaVinci Code.

Imagine how much fun—and how readable, for a change–the New York Times Book Review would be if it had a sense of humor like this….

Charles McGrath writes in the Times on the very moving story of Kennedy School professor Jessica Stern, who has written a book called Denial about the horrific experience of being raped, along with her sister, when she was 15. (Her sister was 14.)

The book recounts how, in 1973, when Ms. Stern was 15, she and her younger sister were raped at gunpoint in their home in Concord, Mass. The police disbelieved the girls’ account and bungled the investigation; their father, in Europe at the time, didn’t think it necessary to cut his trip short and return. The whole community, she writes, seemed to be in denial.

The experience created in Ms. Stern a kind of emotional numbness — a calmness, even a fearlessness, that has proved oddly useful in her current work.“I am fascinated by the secret motivations of violent men,” she writes in “Denial,” “and I’m good at ferreting them out.”

(Stern, in case you don’t know, is an expert on terrorism known for her one-on-one interviews with terrorists.)

I interviewed Jessica Stern for Harvard Rules, and liked her very much. She’s extremely smart, but also warm and friendly in a way that is—forgive me, but it’s true—sadly atypical of Harvard, where newcomers/outsiders are often greeted with skepticism and suspicion. So I was saddened to hear of this horrible thing in her life, but also impressed by the courage it must have taken to force herself to revisit this crime, try to figure it out, and then write about it.

I purchased Denial last night and have read about 60 pages of it. So far, it’s really an astonishing book—beautifully written and so honest it’s almost painful to read.

For me, one of the early lessons of the book is that sexual violence against women is so prevalent that it affects women who we’d never expect to have suffered from it—women who, for example, are high-achieving, happily married public figures.

Another lesson is that the consequences of sexual violence can manifest themselves in much more subtle ways than we may fully understand. One consequence for Stern was an emotional numbness that helped her interview violent men without reacting emotionally to what they said—as well as, in a way she herself didn’t understand until recently, the desire to interview those men, to try to figure out what made them the way they had become.

Bravo, Ms. Stern, bravo.