Shots In The Dark
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Hillary Positions Herself
As predicted yesterday, Hillary Clinton took a new stance on the Iraq war, um, yesterday. She's calling for troop pull-outs from Iraq starting in 2006, depending on the outcome of Iraqi elections on December 15th.
The Times, showing that it still doesn't know how to use the Internet for online journalism, doesn't bother to link to Clinton's statement, so I will. It's here.
Here's Hillary's nut graf:
I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. I believe we are at a critical point with the December 15th elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities. This will advance our interests, help fight terrorism and protect the interests of the Iraqi people.
But to my mind, there's a crucial step missing. What exactly are the elections going to change that makes it plausible for us to start withdrawing troops? Will they somehow make the U.S.-trained Iraqi army more viable? Seems unlikely.
Mrs. Clinton spends the vast majority of her letter Bush-bashing. But near the end, she does return to her own prescription.
If these elections succeed, we should be able to start drawing down our troops, but we should also plan to continue to help secure the country and the region with a smaller footprint on an as-needed basis. I call on the President...for such a plan....
Two points: What is success? And why call on the president for a plan? Why not come up with your own?
Sooner or later, Senator Clinton will have to, if she expects to lead the country. ¶ 9:26 AM 2 comments
The Times, showing that it still doesn't know how to use the Internet for online journalism, doesn't bother to link to Clinton's statement, so I will. It's here.
Here's Hillary's nut graf:
I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. I believe we are at a critical point with the December 15th elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities. This will advance our interests, help fight terrorism and protect the interests of the Iraqi people.
But to my mind, there's a crucial step missing. What exactly are the elections going to change that makes it plausible for us to start withdrawing troops? Will they somehow make the U.S.-trained Iraqi army more viable? Seems unlikely.
Mrs. Clinton spends the vast majority of her letter Bush-bashing. But near the end, she does return to her own prescription.
If these elections succeed, we should be able to start drawing down our troops, but we should also plan to continue to help secure the country and the region with a smaller footprint on an as-needed basis. I call on the President...for such a plan....
Two points: What is success? And why call on the president for a plan? Why not come up with your own?
Sooner or later, Senator Clinton will have to, if she expects to lead the country. ¶ 9:26 AM 2 comments
Ignatieff for Parliament
Harvard professor Michael Ignatieff, who is Canadian, has announced that he's going to run for the Canadian Parliament as a member of the Liberal Party. I'd vote for him. The head of the Kennedy School's Carr Center for Human Rights, Ignatieff's a thoughtful, serious and passionate guy. (I interviewed him for Harvard Rules, and he spoke on the record, a quality I always admire and encourage in a future politician.) He's intensely devoted to the cause of human rights, and has spent years trying to make the world a better place. Good for Michael to take this leap, and good luck to him. He's an example of Harvard and the Kennedy School at their best.
¶ 9:07 AM 0 comments
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Boston Magazine Giveth
Readers of this blog can now read "The Great Harvard Drug Scandal" online here. But buy the magazine anyway, okay? Those guys work hard for the money.
¶ 3:47 PM 0 comments
The Great Harvard Drug Scandal
That's the title of John Wolfson's piece in Boston Magazine, which I just received in the mail. The powerful story tells of Larry Summer's attempt to seize control of a $125 million grant to fight AIDS in Africa received by Phyllis Kanki, a researcher at the School of Public Health.
Here's the nut graf:
"That set up a struggle that stretched over the first half of 2004, delaying crucial AIDS work for five months. Though this battle would get far less publicity than other Summers skirmishes—the odd fight he picked with the Afro-American studies profesor Cornel West, for example, or the contrvoersy he ignited with comments suggesting that genetics might explain the paucity of women in science—its ramifications would be infinitely more severe. The casualties would not be limited to the ego of a star academic or the march of social progress. The unversity denies it adamantly, but well-informed critics say the victims this time would be hundreds of impoverished, AIDS-stricken Africans who died waiting for Harvard to deliver the life-extending treatment it had been given public money to provide." (Emphasis added.)
The mind reels.
As it does from the rationale provided by Harvard spokesman B.D. Colen, which—well, you'll just have to read it for yourself. Let's just say that Colen's response is cynical, cavalier, and, frankly, cruel. (Or, if you're feeling gentle, it's just deeply ignorant.) It's on page 116 of Wolfson's story.
But really, you should read the entire article. Unfortunately, it's not (yet?) online, so you might have to buy the magazine. It's worth the $4. ¶ 2:55 PM 0 comments
Here's the nut graf:
"That set up a struggle that stretched over the first half of 2004, delaying crucial AIDS work for five months. Though this battle would get far less publicity than other Summers skirmishes—the odd fight he picked with the Afro-American studies profesor Cornel West, for example, or the contrvoersy he ignited with comments suggesting that genetics might explain the paucity of women in science—its ramifications would be infinitely more severe. The casualties would not be limited to the ego of a star academic or the march of social progress. The unversity denies it adamantly, but well-informed critics say the victims this time would be hundreds of impoverished, AIDS-stricken Africans who died waiting for Harvard to deliver the life-extending treatment it had been given public money to provide." (Emphasis added.)
The mind reels.
As it does from the rationale provided by Harvard spokesman B.D. Colen, which—well, you'll just have to read it for yourself. Let's just say that Colen's response is cynical, cavalier, and, frankly, cruel. (Or, if you're feeling gentle, it's just deeply ignorant.) It's on page 116 of Wolfson's story.
But really, you should read the entire article. Unfortunately, it's not (yet?) online, so you might have to buy the magazine. It's worth the $4. ¶ 2:55 PM 0 comments
Nora Ephron: She's No Dummy
On the Huffington Post, Nora Ephron has a wickedly smart analysis of Bob Woodward, whom she calls the "dumb blonde of Washington."
Most of her post isn't so nasty, but it is, in its way, quite devastating.
(And not just because she agrees with me that the reason Woodward trashed Patrick Fitzgerald in public was to pressure Fitzgerald into cooperating with him.)
You know, if I were a newspaper editor—or, say, editor of a national magazine devoted to cuture and politics—I might just think about signing up Nora Ephron as a columnist. She covers the same turf as Maureen Dowd, and to my mind, she's a better writer.... ¶ 9:21 AM 0 comments
Most of her post isn't so nasty, but it is, in its way, quite devastating.
(And not just because she agrees with me that the reason Woodward trashed Patrick Fitzgerald in public was to pressure Fitzgerald into cooperating with him.)
You know, if I were a newspaper editor—or, say, editor of a national magazine devoted to cuture and politics—I might just think about signing up Nora Ephron as a columnist. She covers the same turf as Maureen Dowd, and to my mind, she's a better writer.... ¶ 9:21 AM 0 comments
How Quickly the Over-Hyped Fall
Mediaweek reports that Anderson Cooper's ratings are down 19% from Aaron Brown's last week on-air.
What I find truly remarkable is that the show's only averaging about 568,000 viewers. By TV standards, you can't get much smaller. I'll bet the Robyn Bird Show doesn't do much worse (and I don't even know what channel it's on any more).
I understand that in promoting Cooper ad nauseum, CNN is just trying to figure out how to stop the bleeding. I've got an idea. Journalism? I'd like to see CNN focus more on the news and stories it's reporting, rather than the people who are doing the reporting.... ¶ 9:08 AM 5 comments
What I find truly remarkable is that the show's only averaging about 568,000 viewers. By TV standards, you can't get much smaller. I'll bet the Robyn Bird Show doesn't do much worse (and I don't even know what channel it's on any more).
I understand that in promoting Cooper ad nauseum, CNN is just trying to figure out how to stop the bleeding. I've got an idea. Journalism? I'd like to see CNN focus more on the news and stories it's reporting, rather than the people who are doing the reporting.... ¶ 9:08 AM 5 comments
Is the Pope a Bigot?
In Slate, my friend Will Saletan outlines Joseph Ratzinger's 30-year campaign against gays. The gist of Will's piece is that Ratzinger has long been obsessed with purging homosexuality from, not just the church, but society at large.
I'm not Catholic (though half of my extended family is)...but if I were, I'd be struggling with the idea that the man elevated to my church's highest position appears to be a bigot. ¶ 8:57 AM 0 comments
I'm not Catholic (though half of my extended family is)...but if I were, I'd be struggling with the idea that the man elevated to my church's highest position appears to be a bigot. ¶ 8:57 AM 0 comments
The Democrats and Iraq
While driving yesterday, I heard The Atlantic's James Fallows discuss his cover story, "Why Iraq Has No Army." I always find Fallows smart, thoughtful, and politically hard to pin down, which I mean as a compliment. His piece is really a must-read for Democrats and others who oppose the war—and it poses a dilemma for Democratic aspirants to the presidency.
It's a good thing that the Democrats are finally showing signs of life. But ultimately, Hillary Clinton et al are going to have to do more than say that the was has been botched, or that it was a mistake from the get-go. (Tough for Hillary to say, since she voted in favor of it.) Regardless of whether the war was a mistake, it happened, and it's happening. Democrats are going to have to say what they would do now.
And that seems an impossible question. As Fallows writes: "The crucial need to improve security and order in Iraq puts the United States in an impossible position. It can't honorably leave Iraq—as opposed to simply evacuating Saigon-style—so long as its military must provide most of the manpower, weaponry, intelligence systems, and strategies being used against the insurgency. But it can't sensibly stay when the very presence of its troops is a worsening irritant to the Iraqi public and a rallying point for nationalist opponents—to say nothing of the growing pressure in the United States for withdrawal."
It's a terrific article. ¶ 8:45 AM 2 comments
It's a good thing that the Democrats are finally showing signs of life. But ultimately, Hillary Clinton et al are going to have to do more than say that the was has been botched, or that it was a mistake from the get-go. (Tough for Hillary to say, since she voted in favor of it.) Regardless of whether the war was a mistake, it happened, and it's happening. Democrats are going to have to say what they would do now.
And that seems an impossible question. As Fallows writes: "The crucial need to improve security and order in Iraq puts the United States in an impossible position. It can't honorably leave Iraq—as opposed to simply evacuating Saigon-style—so long as its military must provide most of the manpower, weaponry, intelligence systems, and strategies being used against the insurgency. But it can't sensibly stay when the very presence of its troops is a worsening irritant to the Iraqi public and a rallying point for nationalist opponents—to say nothing of the growing pressure in the United States for withdrawal."
It's a terrific article. ¶ 8:45 AM 2 comments
Monday, November 28, 2005
The Wirth Letter
Here's the letter former U.S. senator Timothy Wirth wrote to Corporation senior fellow Jamie Houghton.... Click on the letter to enlarge it.
¶ 6:15 PM 2 comments
Here's the letter former U.S. senator Timothy Wirth wrote to Corporation senior fellow Jamie Houghton.... Click on the letter to enlarge it.
¶ 6:15 PM 2 comments
John Silber: Summers Shouldn't Apologize
In the same issue of Boston magazine, John Sedgwick conducts a fascinating interview with former Boston University president John Silber.
As usual with Silber, some of his remarks sound extremely sensible, and some of them sound borderline nutty.
Silber's bottom line: "Summers has done nothing to be ashamed of, and that's why he shouldn't apologize. Once he apologizes, then you wonder whether he's done something naughty." ¶ 9:10 AM 0 comments
As usual with Silber, some of his remarks sound extremely sensible, and some of them sound borderline nutty.
Silber's bottom line: "Summers has done nothing to be ashamed of, and that's why he shouldn't apologize. Once he apologizes, then you wonder whether he's done something naughty." ¶ 9:10 AM 0 comments
Expose Alert
In its December issue, Boston magazine will be publishing an investigation into the Harvard AIDS scandal, in which tens of millions of dollars in AIDS relief was held back while Mass Hall attempted to seize control of a federal grant won by the School of Public Health. As reported earlier by the Boston Globe, dozens of HIV-infected Africans died as a result.
Even before its issue has hit the stands, Boston has published documents related to the scandal on its website.
If you have a high tolerance for bureaucratic doublespeak, I encourage you to read them. Or wait till the article comes out, then read the documents.
To my mind, this is the most important and disturbing story of Larry Summers' tenure at Harvard, because it was a matter of life and death, and death won. ¶ 8:59 AM 2 comments
Even before its issue has hit the stands, Boston has published documents related to the scandal on its website.
If you have a high tolerance for bureaucratic doublespeak, I encourage you to read them. Or wait till the article comes out, then read the documents.
To my mind, this is the most important and disturbing story of Larry Summers' tenure at Harvard, because it was a matter of life and death, and death won. ¶ 8:59 AM 2 comments
A Harvard Alum Speaks Out*
In the Globe, Marcella Bombardieri reports on a letter critical of Larry Summers circulating through some Harvard offices.
The author of the letter is former Colorado senator Tim Wirth, a Harvard alum; he graduated from the college in 1961 and received a master's degree from the school of education in 1965.
In the letter, which is addressed to Corporation senior fellow Jamie Houghton, Wirth praises a public attack on intelligent design delivered by Cornell president Hunter Rawlings. Harvard's president should have the same public profile, Wirth says. "Unhappily, I fear that President Summers is so damaged that a Harvard statement and position might be lost, or might be reported only along with a further recitation of his woes."
(Which is, I think, an accurate prediction.)
Wirth doesn't explicitly call for Summers' resignation, but he clearly implies that Summers' exit would be the best way for Harvard to retake the leadership status that "the world...has come to expect."
John Longbrake, Summers' spokesman, dodges the larger issue by saying that Summers has spoken out against intelligent design, "as recently as November 12 at a large gathering in New York City." A speech [presumably] at the Harvard Club was not exactly what Wirth had in mind.
An irony of this situation is that the Harvard Corporation chose Larry Summers precisely for the role Wirth envisions of the Harvard president. But some of Summers' public statements on matters of public debate have been so hamhanded that he is now effectively gagged.
Wirth is a former senator, so it will be hard for Mass Hall to discredit him. (It would if it could.) The question is now, will other alums follow Wirth's lead? And what kind of impact will Wirth's letter and similar sentiments have on Harvard fundraising?
___________________________________________________________________
* Thanks to the poster below who reminded me of Bombardieri's piece. ¶ 8:23 AM 0 comments
The author of the letter is former Colorado senator Tim Wirth, a Harvard alum; he graduated from the college in 1961 and received a master's degree from the school of education in 1965.
In the letter, which is addressed to Corporation senior fellow Jamie Houghton, Wirth praises a public attack on intelligent design delivered by Cornell president Hunter Rawlings. Harvard's president should have the same public profile, Wirth says. "Unhappily, I fear that President Summers is so damaged that a Harvard statement and position might be lost, or might be reported only along with a further recitation of his woes."
(Which is, I think, an accurate prediction.)
Wirth doesn't explicitly call for Summers' resignation, but he clearly implies that Summers' exit would be the best way for Harvard to retake the leadership status that "the world...has come to expect."
John Longbrake, Summers' spokesman, dodges the larger issue by saying that Summers has spoken out against intelligent design, "as recently as November 12 at a large gathering in New York City." A speech [presumably] at the Harvard Club was not exactly what Wirth had in mind.
An irony of this situation is that the Harvard Corporation chose Larry Summers precisely for the role Wirth envisions of the Harvard president. But some of Summers' public statements on matters of public debate have been so hamhanded that he is now effectively gagged.
Wirth is a former senator, so it will be hard for Mass Hall to discredit him. (It would if it could.) The question is now, will other alums follow Wirth's lead? And what kind of impact will Wirth's letter and similar sentiments have on Harvard fundraising?
___________________________________________________________________
* Thanks to the poster below who reminded me of Bombardieri's piece. ¶ 8:23 AM 0 comments
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Christmas: It's Out of Hand
The day after Thanksgiving, I happened to need to pay a visit to Ikea, the Swedish furniture store. A bit of a nightmare, but not as bad as it could have been.
Yesterday, though, I visited Times Square with my brother-in-law and six-year-old nephew. (He happens to be my only nephew, and so I happily call him my favorite nephew in the world...but lately, he has wised up, and points out, "I'm your only nephew!")
The three of us braved the Toys-R-Us store in Times Square, an experience I won't willingly repeat. The store was packed with clutching, grabbing, consuming Americans; one couldn't move without bumping into someone happily snapping up a DVD of The Incredibles, picking up a handheld Nintendo device, or checking out the new Xbox. There's actually an in-store Ferris wheel there. Naturally, you had to buy tickets. And naturally, there was an hour wait, which meant that you'd have to shop for an hour before it was your turn to ride.
I get a little nauseous in such situations, so I left quickly.
It was the second time I'd become somewhat alarmed about the way we Americans approach Christmas. On Thanksgiving night, I watched The Polar Express with my nephew and my two nieces, who, coincidentally, happen to be my two favorite nieces in the world. For those of you lacking children or favorite nieces and nephews, it's an animated film about a little boy who doesn't believe in Santa Claus. On Christmas Eve, he boards a train to the North Pole and visits the huge metropolis where Santa and the elves manufacture Christmas presents.
It's kind of a weird film. The largely-deserted North Pole turns out to be an unintentionally scary place, filled with ominous conveyor belts and pneumatic tubes and tunnels and trapdoors. It looks like a Soviety city that's been hit by a neutron bomb—an impression that is only slightly lessened by a huge midnight rally at which all the elves cheer the imminent appearance of Santa Claus, who is first seen as a monstrous shadow.
(At which point I turned to my mother and whispered, "Do you think Robert Zemeckis [the director] is familiar with the work of Leni Riefenstahl?")
Our little boy protagonist is finally convinced that Santa exists when the Great Man chooses him to receive the first present of Christmas.
What kind of message does this send to children? There's not a hint of spirituality in the film.
Well, let me take that back. There is spirituality, just not as one would normally think of it in a Christmas context. Nothing about Jesus, or being thankful, or family, or helping others.
Instead, the material has been elevated to the level of the spiritual. The act of receiving a gift has been transformed into a quasi-religious ritual. Santa Claus is a combination of Jesus and Hitler.
In Dickens' A Christmas Carol, we learn that there is no greater gift than the present. In The Polar Express, we learn that there is no greater gift than a present.
In Dickens, we learn that the greatest joy is giving. In The Polar Express, the greatest joy, the ultimate satisfaction, is receiving.
And in the United States, this "holiday season," as we have dubbed it, the greatest joy is buying...which was not unlike President Bush's advice to the nation after 9/11: Go shopping.
Doesn't the United States mean more than this? Isn't there some way to retake Christmas from the materialistic orgy of our vapid capitalist culture? Or are we really nothing more than what we buy? ¶ 9:34 AM 6 comments
Yesterday, though, I visited Times Square with my brother-in-law and six-year-old nephew. (He happens to be my only nephew, and so I happily call him my favorite nephew in the world...but lately, he has wised up, and points out, "I'm your only nephew!")
The three of us braved the Toys-R-Us store in Times Square, an experience I won't willingly repeat. The store was packed with clutching, grabbing, consuming Americans; one couldn't move without bumping into someone happily snapping up a DVD of The Incredibles, picking up a handheld Nintendo device, or checking out the new Xbox. There's actually an in-store Ferris wheel there. Naturally, you had to buy tickets. And naturally, there was an hour wait, which meant that you'd have to shop for an hour before it was your turn to ride.
I get a little nauseous in such situations, so I left quickly.
It was the second time I'd become somewhat alarmed about the way we Americans approach Christmas. On Thanksgiving night, I watched The Polar Express with my nephew and my two nieces, who, coincidentally, happen to be my two favorite nieces in the world. For those of you lacking children or favorite nieces and nephews, it's an animated film about a little boy who doesn't believe in Santa Claus. On Christmas Eve, he boards a train to the North Pole and visits the huge metropolis where Santa and the elves manufacture Christmas presents.
It's kind of a weird film. The largely-deserted North Pole turns out to be an unintentionally scary place, filled with ominous conveyor belts and pneumatic tubes and tunnels and trapdoors. It looks like a Soviety city that's been hit by a neutron bomb—an impression that is only slightly lessened by a huge midnight rally at which all the elves cheer the imminent appearance of Santa Claus, who is first seen as a monstrous shadow.
(At which point I turned to my mother and whispered, "Do you think Robert Zemeckis [the director] is familiar with the work of Leni Riefenstahl?")
Our little boy protagonist is finally convinced that Santa exists when the Great Man chooses him to receive the first present of Christmas.
What kind of message does this send to children? There's not a hint of spirituality in the film.
Well, let me take that back. There is spirituality, just not as one would normally think of it in a Christmas context. Nothing about Jesus, or being thankful, or family, or helping others.
Instead, the material has been elevated to the level of the spiritual. The act of receiving a gift has been transformed into a quasi-religious ritual. Santa Claus is a combination of Jesus and Hitler.
In Dickens' A Christmas Carol, we learn that there is no greater gift than the present. In The Polar Express, we learn that there is no greater gift than a present.
In Dickens, we learn that the greatest joy is giving. In The Polar Express, the greatest joy, the ultimate satisfaction, is receiving.
And in the United States, this "holiday season," as we have dubbed it, the greatest joy is buying...which was not unlike President Bush's advice to the nation after 9/11: Go shopping.
Doesn't the United States mean more than this? Isn't there some way to retake Christmas from the materialistic orgy of our vapid capitalist culture? Or are we really nothing more than what we buy? ¶ 9:34 AM 6 comments
Harvard in the Books
In the Globe, Allan Helms reviews Harvard's Secret Court: The Savage 1920 Purge of Campus Homosexuals, by William Wright.
It's a fascinating story, involving a secret tribunal that expelled a number of Harvard students for suspected gay activity. But Helms suggests that the telling of it is deeply flawed, including a number of factual mistakes, unattributed quotations, and occasional dips into fictionalization.
(The Crimson review said much the same.)
Concludes Helms, "Wright has been so ill served by his editor that perhaps it's time for a new purge."
A couple of points here.
First, Wright shouldn't need an editor to point out factual mistakes or to tell him that interspersing fact and fiction in a work of history is a bad idea.
But second, as is more and more true in publishing, Wright probably didn't have much of an editor. Well, let me rephrase; Wright's editor probably didn't do much actual editing. His publisher, St. Martin's Press, is known as a commercial house (as opposed to one with a highbrown reputation).
(St. Martin's publishes the paperback of American Son, so I don't say that as a slight; nothing wrong with being commercial.)
But I'll bet that St. Martin's was concerned that the publication earlier this year of Harvard Rules and Ross Douthat's Privilege had tapped out the market for books about Harvard, and consequently made a decision not to put a lot of resources into Wright's publication. That, and the fact that it's aimed at a very specific niche—gay people interested in Harvard—probably meant that Wright didn't receive a lot of editorial attention.
And since publishers don't pay for fact-checkers, Wright would have had to hire someone himself. (I did, for both of my books, and I consider it money well-spent.) It sounds like Wright chose not to.
I don't say this as a criticism of Wright; it's tough to write a book about a small subject and have the resources to do it just as you'd like to. At some point, you have to perform a cost-benefit analysis: If I have to spend $2500 on fact-checking, and that's, say, five percent of my advance after taxes and a 15% agent's commission, and the fact-checker catches ten small mistakes...is it worth the money?
Rather, I'm suggesting that some of the perceived failings of Wright's book may reveal telling changes in the publishing business. It's not easy to sell a book about a small chapter of Harvard history.... ¶ 9:12 AM 1 comments
It's a fascinating story, involving a secret tribunal that expelled a number of Harvard students for suspected gay activity. But Helms suggests that the telling of it is deeply flawed, including a number of factual mistakes, unattributed quotations, and occasional dips into fictionalization.
(The Crimson review said much the same.)
Concludes Helms, "Wright has been so ill served by his editor that perhaps it's time for a new purge."
A couple of points here.
First, Wright shouldn't need an editor to point out factual mistakes or to tell him that interspersing fact and fiction in a work of history is a bad idea.
But second, as is more and more true in publishing, Wright probably didn't have much of an editor. Well, let me rephrase; Wright's editor probably didn't do much actual editing. His publisher, St. Martin's Press, is known as a commercial house (as opposed to one with a highbrown reputation).
(St. Martin's publishes the paperback of American Son, so I don't say that as a slight; nothing wrong with being commercial.)
But I'll bet that St. Martin's was concerned that the publication earlier this year of Harvard Rules and Ross Douthat's Privilege had tapped out the market for books about Harvard, and consequently made a decision not to put a lot of resources into Wright's publication. That, and the fact that it's aimed at a very specific niche—gay people interested in Harvard—probably meant that Wright didn't receive a lot of editorial attention.
And since publishers don't pay for fact-checkers, Wright would have had to hire someone himself. (I did, for both of my books, and I consider it money well-spent.) It sounds like Wright chose not to.
I don't say this as a criticism of Wright; it's tough to write a book about a small subject and have the resources to do it just as you'd like to. At some point, you have to perform a cost-benefit analysis: If I have to spend $2500 on fact-checking, and that's, say, five percent of my advance after taxes and a 15% agent's commission, and the fact-checker catches ten small mistakes...is it worth the money?
Rather, I'm suggesting that some of the perceived failings of Wright's book may reveal telling changes in the publishing business. It's not easy to sell a book about a small chapter of Harvard history.... ¶ 9:12 AM 1 comments
Alito: No Women and Minorities at Princeton?
What are we to make of Samuel Alito's membership in a group called Concerned Alumni of Princeton?
Here's what the Times has to say about CAP:
"The group had been founded in 1972, the year that Judge Alito graduated, by alumni upset that Princeton had recently begun admitting women. It published a magazine, Prospect, which persistently accused the administration of taking a permissive approach to student life, of promoting birth control and paying for abortions, and of diluting the explicitly Christian character of the school."
CAP also protested the number of minority students at Princeton, relative to the number of alumni children.
Again, from the Times: "A brochure for Princeton alumni warned, 'The unannounced goal of the administration, now achieved, of a student population of approximately 40 percent women and minorities will largely vitiate the alumni body of the future.'"
A couple of thoughts.
It's hard not to see such sentiments as racist. There doesn't appear to be any argument why a student body of 40 percent women and minorities would be wrong for Princeton. (In fact, it's hard to imagine such an argument that wouldn't be racist and sexist.) But the implication that such a student body composition is, on its face, a bad thing reeks of racism.
It may also be possible to throw anti-Semitism into the mix. That phrase, "diluting the explicitly Christian character of the school," is alarming. But to be fair, it's possible to imagine an argument in behalf of a Christian tradition that isn't anti-Semitic, and the Times doesn't delve into this aspect of the story.
This article does remind one of how nasty the Reagan conservatives of the 1980s really were. Such extreme sentiments were hardly rare, and they were fueled by the Reagan administration. That's one reason why Alito listed his membership in CAP in a 1985 appplication for promotion when he was working in the Reagan administration.
Yes, this happened a long time ago. But Alito's membership in the group is relevant to his judicial philosophy, and senators should question him about it during his confirmation hearings. ¶ 8:36 AM 0 comments
Here's what the Times has to say about CAP:
"The group had been founded in 1972, the year that Judge Alito graduated, by alumni upset that Princeton had recently begun admitting women. It published a magazine, Prospect, which persistently accused the administration of taking a permissive approach to student life, of promoting birth control and paying for abortions, and of diluting the explicitly Christian character of the school."
CAP also protested the number of minority students at Princeton, relative to the number of alumni children.
Again, from the Times: "A brochure for Princeton alumni warned, 'The unannounced goal of the administration, now achieved, of a student population of approximately 40 percent women and minorities will largely vitiate the alumni body of the future.'"
A couple of thoughts.
It's hard not to see such sentiments as racist. There doesn't appear to be any argument why a student body of 40 percent women and minorities would be wrong for Princeton. (In fact, it's hard to imagine such an argument that wouldn't be racist and sexist.) But the implication that such a student body composition is, on its face, a bad thing reeks of racism.
It may also be possible to throw anti-Semitism into the mix. That phrase, "diluting the explicitly Christian character of the school," is alarming. But to be fair, it's possible to imagine an argument in behalf of a Christian tradition that isn't anti-Semitic, and the Times doesn't delve into this aspect of the story.
This article does remind one of how nasty the Reagan conservatives of the 1980s really were. Such extreme sentiments were hardly rare, and they were fueled by the Reagan administration. That's one reason why Alito listed his membership in CAP in a 1985 appplication for promotion when he was working in the Reagan administration.
Yes, this happened a long time ago. But Alito's membership in the group is relevant to his judicial philosophy, and senators should question him about it during his confirmation hearings. ¶ 8:36 AM 0 comments
Thursday, November 24, 2005
A Plug for My Cousin
A few years back, my cousin George Blow sent me a copy of a book he was writing about the golf swings of the greatest golfers in history. George has spent years not only working on his own game, but studying those of other golfers, and you could see that from the book, which was really quite smart. I don't golf—not unless you're feeling incredibly charitable—but George obviously knew his stuff through and through. Golf was his obsession.
Now George has gotten the book published. It's called Master Classes: The Evolution of the Golf Swing, and it looks terrific. If you're a golfer, or you know a golfer—and who doesn't, really?—this is a great Christmas gift. ¶ 9:00 AM 2 comments
Now George has gotten the book published. It's called Master Classes: The Evolution of the Golf Swing, and it looks terrific. If you're a golfer, or you know a golfer—and who doesn't, really?—this is a great Christmas gift. ¶ 9:00 AM 2 comments
I Couldn't Resist Blogging...
...because this is too important: Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey are breaking up.*
It's a shame when any marriage doesn't work—although my fellow Groton alum Curtis Sittenfeld thinks that there's some pleasure in the implosion of celebrity marriages—so I guess I'm sorry to hear that. But here's what makes me laugh: Their statement to the press, which reads, in part, "We hope that you respect our privacy during this difficult time."
This from the couple which starred in a reality television show about their new marriage....
Well, I don't think that the press is going to respect their privacy. But then, since Nick and Jessica don't respect their own privacy, why should it?
I happened to see the Johnny Cash film, "Walk the Line," last night—Joaquin Phoenix is terrific, Reese Witherspoon perhaps even better—and it presented a fascinating counterpart to the Simpson-Lachey story. Cash's early years as a singer were remarkable: Imagine recording at Sun Studio, then touring small-town America in a rock 'n' roll show with Jerry Lee Lewis, Carl Perkins, Elvis Presley, and June Carter...with virtually no one paying attention. Now, up and coming artists are chronicled from their first steps.
I'm sure that something is lost without the omnipresent video and aural recording. But something is lost with it, too—the ability to develop under the radar as an artist and as a person without the self-consciousness effected by an ever-present video camera. Because as Nick and Jessica have learned, once that camera makes its way into your private life, you can never erase those images.
_________________________________________________________________
P.S. I also laugh a bit that they released this statement the day before Thanksgiving, in an attempt to borrow a Washington trick and bury the news. As if. Moreover, I think there's an argument to be made that this trick just doesn't work any more....and all it does is make us media types work on holidays. Which we don't like one bit. ¶ 8:25 AM 0 comments
It's a shame when any marriage doesn't work—although my fellow Groton alum Curtis Sittenfeld thinks that there's some pleasure in the implosion of celebrity marriages—so I guess I'm sorry to hear that. But here's what makes me laugh: Their statement to the press, which reads, in part, "We hope that you respect our privacy during this difficult time."
This from the couple which starred in a reality television show about their new marriage....
Well, I don't think that the press is going to respect their privacy. But then, since Nick and Jessica don't respect their own privacy, why should it?
I happened to see the Johnny Cash film, "Walk the Line," last night—Joaquin Phoenix is terrific, Reese Witherspoon perhaps even better—and it presented a fascinating counterpart to the Simpson-Lachey story. Cash's early years as a singer were remarkable: Imagine recording at Sun Studio, then touring small-town America in a rock 'n' roll show with Jerry Lee Lewis, Carl Perkins, Elvis Presley, and June Carter...with virtually no one paying attention. Now, up and coming artists are chronicled from their first steps.
I'm sure that something is lost without the omnipresent video and aural recording. But something is lost with it, too—the ability to develop under the radar as an artist and as a person without the self-consciousness effected by an ever-present video camera. Because as Nick and Jessica have learned, once that camera makes its way into your private life, you can never erase those images.
_________________________________________________________________
P.S. I also laugh a bit that they released this statement the day before Thanksgiving, in an attempt to borrow a Washington trick and bury the news. As if. Moreover, I think there's an argument to be made that this trick just doesn't work any more....and all it does is make us media types work on holidays. Which we don't like one bit. ¶ 8:25 AM 0 comments
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Happy Thanksgiving to You All!
I'll be away for a day or so, spending some time with my family up in Connecticut. I have two wonderful nieces and an equally special nephew—my favorite nephew in the world, as I like to tell him—and we'll get to spend some quality time together. Along with, of course, their parents, my brother and sister-in-law, and mother and stepfather. (Dad and stepmother are in Florida, to which they retreat at the hint of cold weather—lucky them!) Thursday, we eat and watch the Lions; Friday, we're taking the kids to see "Disney Live." It'll be fun for the kids to watch, and fun for the adults to watch the kids.
I hope that you all have a wonderful time with your families. And a special nod to the men and women in the military overseas. We're grateful for your service, and we haven't forgotten you. Stay safe, and come home soon. ¶ 11:53 PM 0 comments
I hope that you all have a wonderful time with your families. And a special nod to the men and women in the military overseas. We're grateful for your service, and we haven't forgotten you. Stay safe, and come home soon. ¶ 11:53 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Charles Murray to the Defense
Writing for the conservative thinktank, the American Enterprise Institute, Charles Murray uses Larry Summers' musings on women and science as a starting point to ask, "Where Are the Female Einsteins?"
He begins by saying, "Last January, Harvard University president Lawrence Summers offered a few mild, off-the-record remarks about innate differences between men and women in their aptitude for high-level science and mathematics, and was treated by Harvard's faculty as if he were a crank."
(Italics added.)
An observation here: Ever since Larry Summers' infamous speech, conservatives have rushed to his defense by pointing out that his remarks were off-the-record.
It's a curious logic. The stipulation that one's remarks not be reported—which is what "off the record" means—has no bearing on their merits or demerits. If someone says something incredibly brilliant, it would be no less so for being off the record. And if someone says something incredibly offensive—used the "n" word, for example, or an anti-Semitic term—the fact that it was not intended for publication would not diminish its offensiveness. If a liberal called Rush Limbaugh a fat piece of human waste, and then said, "What are you so upset about, it's off the record?", conservatives would rightly disregard that caveat.
Charles Murray is welcome to defend President Summers' remarks on countless other grounds. That's a healthy debate. But the fact that they were off the record is irrelevant. ¶ 2:51 PM 3 comments
He begins by saying, "Last January, Harvard University president Lawrence Summers offered a few mild, off-the-record remarks about innate differences between men and women in their aptitude for high-level science and mathematics, and was treated by Harvard's faculty as if he were a crank."
(Italics added.)
An observation here: Ever since Larry Summers' infamous speech, conservatives have rushed to his defense by pointing out that his remarks were off-the-record.
It's a curious logic. The stipulation that one's remarks not be reported—which is what "off the record" means—has no bearing on their merits or demerits. If someone says something incredibly brilliant, it would be no less so for being off the record. And if someone says something incredibly offensive—used the "n" word, for example, or an anti-Semitic term—the fact that it was not intended for publication would not diminish its offensiveness. If a liberal called Rush Limbaugh a fat piece of human waste, and then said, "What are you so upset about, it's off the record?", conservatives would rightly disregard that caveat.
Charles Murray is welcome to defend President Summers' remarks on countless other grounds. That's a healthy debate. But the fact that they were off the record is irrelevant. ¶ 2:51 PM 3 comments
Thanks for Your Patience
...while I set up my new iMac G5, with—I blush—a 20-inch monitor, 250 gigs of hard drive space, wireless keyboard and mouse, and built-in iSight.
After four years and two books, the old iBook was just running out of steam—not to mention hard drive space. I suppose 2700 songs in iTunes will do that to a computer. But it served me well, and it will eventually be put into the closet, along with my clamshell iBook and my Powerbook 3400, neither of which I have any idea what to do with but can't bear myself to toss/recycle.
Problem was that in transporting files from the iBook, with OS 10.3.9, to the iMac, with OS 10.4.3, things went a little haywire, leading to no less than five hours on the phone with four different Apple reps. Adam, I apologize again for saying that my computer was FUBAR. Devon, it took 118 minutes and fifteen seconds, but we finally got those addresses imported. (1066 of them, to be precise.)
Now can I say that this computer is a thing of beauty?
Yes, I can. Let's just say that if this blog were written as well as this computer is engineered.... Well, it's something to shoot for. ¶ 12:12 PM 3 comments
After four years and two books, the old iBook was just running out of steam—not to mention hard drive space. I suppose 2700 songs in iTunes will do that to a computer. But it served me well, and it will eventually be put into the closet, along with my clamshell iBook and my Powerbook 3400, neither of which I have any idea what to do with but can't bear myself to toss/recycle.
Problem was that in transporting files from the iBook, with OS 10.3.9, to the iMac, with OS 10.4.3, things went a little haywire, leading to no less than five hours on the phone with four different Apple reps. Adam, I apologize again for saying that my computer was FUBAR. Devon, it took 118 minutes and fifteen seconds, but we finally got those addresses imported. (1066 of them, to be precise.)
Now can I say that this computer is a thing of beauty?
Yes, I can. Let's just say that if this blog were written as well as this computer is engineered.... Well, it's something to shoot for. ¶ 12:12 PM 3 comments
Monday, November 21, 2005
How Harvard and Google Got in Bed Together
In the Times, Katie Hafner writes an article about Harvard librarian Sidney Verba and his role overseeing Harvard's partnership with Google, as Google attempts to digitize all the books in Harvard's libraries.
Although this was not Ms. Hafner's intention, the article raises questions about whether the deal between Harvard and Google was made not on its merits, but because of a close relationship between Larry Summers and a top Google executive.
Hafner's piece romps along for some time, rather sympathetically to Mr. Verba. Hafner suggests that Verba was well aware of the implications of Google's project—which many authors believe constitutes copyright violation on an unprecedented scale—but at the same time, she quotes Verba saying, "It's become much more controversial than I would have expected. I was surprised by the vehemence."
Given that the Google project could one day allow readers to search every book in existence online, without authors receiving a penny, one wonders how much Verba had truly considered its implications. Google vows that it won't allow readers to read whole books online...but once the scanning is done and the books are posted, that genie will be out of the bottle. Either Google will change its mind...or hackers will write programs, much like peer-to-peer file sharing networks, that allow users to download entire books from Google, all free of charge.
Moreover, there's a local angle for Harvardians: President Larry Summers is profoundly skeptical about Harvard's libraries—how much they cost, and whether all of their resources are really necessary—and during his tenure, Harvard's libraries have come under steady pressure to cut hours and staff.
So how did Verba decide to support this initiative? That's where Hafner's article gets really interesting.
She writes, "When Sheryl Sandberg, a Google executive, first visited Harvard two years ago and put forth the idea of digitizing millions of books spread out over Harvard's more than 90 libraries, Mr. Verba was skeptical. The sheer magnitude of the task seemed staggering."
Hafner then discusses Google's awesome scanning abilities.
But wait—there's a critical fact about Sheryl Sandberg that Hafner either doesn't know or doesn't mention.
True, Sheryl Sandberg is a Google executive; she is the vice-president of global online sales and operations.
"In this role," according to Google's website, "Sheryl is responsible for online sales of Google's advertising and publishing products. She also runs sales operations and support for Google's consumer products and for Google Print."
Huh. No mention of any work with university libraries. So why was Sandberg chosen to propose this project to Harvard?
Turns out that Sandberg has some pretty tight Cambridge connections. She's a 1991 graduate of the college, an economics major who graduated summa cum laude and was awarded the John H. Williams prize for the top graduating student in economics. And she's a 1995 graduate of HBS.
But perhaps most important was this: Prior to joining Google, Sandberg was chief of staff to none other than Treasury secretary Larry Summers.
From all I hear, the two of them were close at Treasury and have remained good friends. So Google's decision to send Sandberg to Harvard—never previously disclosed, as far as I can tell—would seem to have something to do with her relationship with Harvard's president.
All of which makes one wonder: Was Harvard's decision to join the Google project influenced by the relationship between Larry Summers and Sheryl Sandberg?
In Washington, from whence Summers and Sandberg came, this is called lobbying. It's illegal to leave the government and immediately start lobbying your former employer, because your close connections to that employer could inappropriately influence that employer's decisions. But no such restrictions apply to the non-profit world.
Nonetheless, since the Google decision could affect the livelihoods of every Harvard professor who's published a book—presumably all of them—and since it will have a profound effect on writers everywhere, it behooves the faculty to start asking questions about how the Harvard-Google relationship was forged, and whether the process was corrupted by the relationship between Sandberg and Summers. After all, this deal between a non-profit university and a private sector company was made in the utmost secrecy, with absolutely no discussion among the people affected—those who write the books that are in Google's libraries.
At the next faculty meeting, Harvard's professors should ask questions such as:
Why was there no public discussion about a deal involving the entire Harvard faculty?
Did Sandberg and Summers discuss the Google deal before any decision was made?
When Sandberg came to Harvard to see Verba, did she also visit Summers? After she met with Verba, did she subsequently contact Summers?
Did Summers and Verba discuss the deal before a decision was made?
Did Verba feel any pressure from Larry Summers to play ball with Google?
Did Verba have any incentive to try to please the president by going along with the Google deal?
Was it really Verba who made the decision to go along with Google, or was it Larry Summers' decision, for which Verba is the front man?
If Larry Summers were to leave the Harvard presidency—not an insane proposition—could he ever profit financially from a relationship with Google—by, for example, serving as a member of Google's board? And would he now take a public oath to avoid any such financial relationship?
Harvard's participation in Google's project is a hugely valuable endorsement, one that is surely having a broad impact. You can imagine librarians at many universities saying to themselves, "Well, if Harvard is doing it, then it must be a good idea."
(I'd say that Google couldn't buy that kind of publicity, except that may be exactly what Google has done: Was Sandberg was hired precisely because of her connections with Summers?)
But it isn't a good idea if the real reason why Harvard joined forces with Google is the tight relationship between the university's president and his former closest aide. ¶ 8:21 AM 0 comments
Although this was not Ms. Hafner's intention, the article raises questions about whether the deal between Harvard and Google was made not on its merits, but because of a close relationship between Larry Summers and a top Google executive.
Hafner's piece romps along for some time, rather sympathetically to Mr. Verba. Hafner suggests that Verba was well aware of the implications of Google's project—which many authors believe constitutes copyright violation on an unprecedented scale—but at the same time, she quotes Verba saying, "It's become much more controversial than I would have expected. I was surprised by the vehemence."
Given that the Google project could one day allow readers to search every book in existence online, without authors receiving a penny, one wonders how much Verba had truly considered its implications. Google vows that it won't allow readers to read whole books online...but once the scanning is done and the books are posted, that genie will be out of the bottle. Either Google will change its mind...or hackers will write programs, much like peer-to-peer file sharing networks, that allow users to download entire books from Google, all free of charge.
Moreover, there's a local angle for Harvardians: President Larry Summers is profoundly skeptical about Harvard's libraries—how much they cost, and whether all of their resources are really necessary—and during his tenure, Harvard's libraries have come under steady pressure to cut hours and staff.
So how did Verba decide to support this initiative? That's where Hafner's article gets really interesting.
She writes, "When Sheryl Sandberg, a Google executive, first visited Harvard two years ago and put forth the idea of digitizing millions of books spread out over Harvard's more than 90 libraries, Mr. Verba was skeptical. The sheer magnitude of the task seemed staggering."
Hafner then discusses Google's awesome scanning abilities.
But wait—there's a critical fact about Sheryl Sandberg that Hafner either doesn't know or doesn't mention.
True, Sheryl Sandberg is a Google executive; she is the vice-president of global online sales and operations.
"In this role," according to Google's website, "Sheryl is responsible for online sales of Google's advertising and publishing products. She also runs sales operations and support for Google's consumer products and for Google Print."
Huh. No mention of any work with university libraries. So why was Sandberg chosen to propose this project to Harvard?
Turns out that Sandberg has some pretty tight Cambridge connections. She's a 1991 graduate of the college, an economics major who graduated summa cum laude and was awarded the John H. Williams prize for the top graduating student in economics. And she's a 1995 graduate of HBS.
But perhaps most important was this: Prior to joining Google, Sandberg was chief of staff to none other than Treasury secretary Larry Summers.
From all I hear, the two of them were close at Treasury and have remained good friends. So Google's decision to send Sandberg to Harvard—never previously disclosed, as far as I can tell—would seem to have something to do with her relationship with Harvard's president.
All of which makes one wonder: Was Harvard's decision to join the Google project influenced by the relationship between Larry Summers and Sheryl Sandberg?
In Washington, from whence Summers and Sandberg came, this is called lobbying. It's illegal to leave the government and immediately start lobbying your former employer, because your close connections to that employer could inappropriately influence that employer's decisions. But no such restrictions apply to the non-profit world.
Nonetheless, since the Google decision could affect the livelihoods of every Harvard professor who's published a book—presumably all of them—and since it will have a profound effect on writers everywhere, it behooves the faculty to start asking questions about how the Harvard-Google relationship was forged, and whether the process was corrupted by the relationship between Sandberg and Summers. After all, this deal between a non-profit university and a private sector company was made in the utmost secrecy, with absolutely no discussion among the people affected—those who write the books that are in Google's libraries.
At the next faculty meeting, Harvard's professors should ask questions such as:
Why was there no public discussion about a deal involving the entire Harvard faculty?
Did Sandberg and Summers discuss the Google deal before any decision was made?
When Sandberg came to Harvard to see Verba, did she also visit Summers? After she met with Verba, did she subsequently contact Summers?
Did Summers and Verba discuss the deal before a decision was made?
Did Verba feel any pressure from Larry Summers to play ball with Google?
Did Verba have any incentive to try to please the president by going along with the Google deal?
Was it really Verba who made the decision to go along with Google, or was it Larry Summers' decision, for which Verba is the front man?
If Larry Summers were to leave the Harvard presidency—not an insane proposition—could he ever profit financially from a relationship with Google—by, for example, serving as a member of Google's board? And would he now take a public oath to avoid any such financial relationship?
Harvard's participation in Google's project is a hugely valuable endorsement, one that is surely having a broad impact. You can imagine librarians at many universities saying to themselves, "Well, if Harvard is doing it, then it must be a good idea."
(I'd say that Google couldn't buy that kind of publicity, except that may be exactly what Google has done: Was Sandberg was hired precisely because of her connections with Summers?)
But it isn't a good idea if the real reason why Harvard joined forces with Google is the tight relationship between the university's president and his former closest aide. ¶ 8:21 AM 0 comments
Friday, November 18, 2005
Republicans and Hot Sex
Thought that would get your attention....
Are conservatives hypocrites when it comes to sex?
Well, yeah. Just ask "Hot Tub Tom" DeLay.
Does it matter?
I think so...and in this piece for TomPaine.com, I talk about why, when Scooter Libby writes a novel about a ten-year-old girl who repeatedly has sex with a bear, it's a problem not just for Republicans, but for the country as a whole. ¶ 9:24 AM 1 comments
Are conservatives hypocrites when it comes to sex?
Well, yeah. Just ask "Hot Tub Tom" DeLay.
Does it matter?
I think so...and in this piece for TomPaine.com, I talk about why, when Scooter Libby writes a novel about a ten-year-old girl who repeatedly has sex with a bear, it's a problem not just for Republicans, but for the country as a whole. ¶ 9:24 AM 1 comments
Harvard Alums: They're Not Giving!
Following the Globe, the Crimson weighs in with its report on Harvard's declining rates of alumni giving.
The article doesn't contain a lot of new information, but it does update the Globe piece in a couple of bemusing ways.
First, vice-president for finance Donella Rapier seems to have learned that it's not wise to concede that President Summers' image problems may be hurting alumni giving, as she did in the Globe.
“A number of people have been incredibly supportive of the president and all he is trying to do, and some have asked questions,” she told the Globe.
President Summers was apparently none too pleased by this display of...well...admitting the obvious.
Now, Rapier tells the Crimson of her “strong sense...that our alumni are highly supportive of the President and his vision for Harvard’s future.”
(Where is Global Language Monitor when you need them?)
In the Globe article, Rapier also suggested that many alumni were hard to reach because they only had cell phones, an assertion about which this blogger was skeptical; I suggested that the presence of e-mail should more than compensate for the miniscule number of alums who don't have landlines.
Perhaps Ms. Rapier reads this blog, because now the Crimson reports that "in their attempts to contact alumni, Harvard fundraisers now face e-mail spam filters...and overflowing e-mail inboxes."
Too funny.
Look, there probably is some correlation between President Summers, who is obviously a divisive figure, and alumni giving. But there may also be more credible explanations that have nothing to do with "e-mail spam filters."
(I mean, come on, people—you are Harvard. If your fundraising is dependent on not being considered spam, then you've got a serious problem.)
How about the fact that, since 2001, the stock market has either been declining or in the doldrums, and people just don't feel as rich as they did in the 1990s? Or the fact that 2001 marked the departure of a president who'd just completed a huge capital campaign?
If I were trying to explain away declining rates of alumni giving, I'd throw out those explanations, instead of talking about what a challenge cell phones are.
One word of caution to the Crimson: It's time to treat last year's alleged $590 million raised—ostensibly a record—with skepticism. Do you really think that there was no pressure on the relevant parties not to make it look like fundraising was down during Larry Summers' annus horribilis?
From what I hear, these numbers are more cooked than a chicken in China.... ¶ 8:59 AM 0 comments
The article doesn't contain a lot of new information, but it does update the Globe piece in a couple of bemusing ways.
First, vice-president for finance Donella Rapier seems to have learned that it's not wise to concede that President Summers' image problems may be hurting alumni giving, as she did in the Globe.
“A number of people have been incredibly supportive of the president and all he is trying to do, and some have asked questions,” she told the Globe.
President Summers was apparently none too pleased by this display of...well...admitting the obvious.
Now, Rapier tells the Crimson of her “strong sense...that our alumni are highly supportive of the President and his vision for Harvard’s future.”
(Where is Global Language Monitor when you need them?)
In the Globe article, Rapier also suggested that many alumni were hard to reach because they only had cell phones, an assertion about which this blogger was skeptical; I suggested that the presence of e-mail should more than compensate for the miniscule number of alums who don't have landlines.
Perhaps Ms. Rapier reads this blog, because now the Crimson reports that "in their attempts to contact alumni, Harvard fundraisers now face e-mail spam filters...and overflowing e-mail inboxes."
Too funny.
Look, there probably is some correlation between President Summers, who is obviously a divisive figure, and alumni giving. But there may also be more credible explanations that have nothing to do with "e-mail spam filters."
(I mean, come on, people—you are Harvard. If your fundraising is dependent on not being considered spam, then you've got a serious problem.)
How about the fact that, since 2001, the stock market has either been declining or in the doldrums, and people just don't feel as rich as they did in the 1990s? Or the fact that 2001 marked the departure of a president who'd just completed a huge capital campaign?
If I were trying to explain away declining rates of alumni giving, I'd throw out those explanations, instead of talking about what a challenge cell phones are.
One word of caution to the Crimson: It's time to treat last year's alleged $590 million raised—ostensibly a record—with skepticism. Do you really think that there was no pressure on the relevant parties not to make it look like fundraising was down during Larry Summers' annus horribilis?
From what I hear, these numbers are more cooked than a chicken in China.... ¶ 8:59 AM 0 comments
The Language Police Arrest Larry Summers
Global Language Monitor, a non-profit group that monitors language use—where do these people get the time?—has compiled a list of the 10 most politically correct words or phrases of 2005, and Larry Summers' use of the phrase "intrinsic aptitude" lands at number two on the list.
"Intrinsic aptitude" was, of course, the phrase Summers used to explain why he thought women are less gifted at science and mathematics than men are.
In fairness to President Summers, many people thought the phrase was politically incorrect. So he's sort of getting it coming and going here.
Also on the list were "deferred success" (for "failure") and "misguided criminals" (terrorists). ¶ 8:53 AM 0 comments
"Intrinsic aptitude" was, of course, the phrase Summers used to explain why he thought women are less gifted at science and mathematics than men are.
In fairness to President Summers, many people thought the phrase was politically incorrect. So he's sort of getting it coming and going here.
Also on the list were "deferred success" (for "failure") and "misguided criminals" (terrorists). ¶ 8:53 AM 0 comments
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Bob Woodward: Apparently, He's On Crack
What was Bob Woodward thinking/smoking?
Yesterday he announced that he was made privy to Valerie Wilson's CIA identity a month before Bob Novak was. (Typical Woodward; he always has to be first.)
Yet for months, he has been disparaging the importance of Patrick Fitzgerald's leak investigation.
As Howie Kurtz reported today in WashPo, Woodward "said on MSNBC's 'Hardball' in June that in the end 'there is going to be nothing to it. And it is a shame. And the special prosecutor in that case, his behavior, in my view, has been disgraceful.' In a National Public Radio interview in July, Woodward said that Fitzgerald made 'a big mistake' in going after Miller and that 'there is not the kind of compelling evidence that there was some crime involved here.'"
This is not rocket science; this is journalism 101. If you have a conflict of interest in a matter, you must disclose it while writing or talking about it. Woodward's criticism of the investigation now looks like nothing more than protecting a source. And, for that matter, himself.
I don't think you could find another reporter, for example, who ever thought that Fitzgerald's behavior was "disgraceful." That's strong language—and it sounds much more like the White House than like an independent, non-partisan commentator.
Perhaps Woodward felt free to call Fitzgerald "disgraceful" because the independent counsel wouldn't talk to him....whereas everyone who does talk to Woodward gets the kid-glove treatment.
Woodward has humiliated his employer. By placing his own story and his own source above the interests of the Washington Post, Woodward shows that his true loyalty is not to the paper, but to himself. And yet, managing editor Len Downie does nothing but say that there was a miscommunication, and that everything is cleared up now.
I think it'd be a better move for Downie to say that he's going to reevaluate the nature of Woodward's relationship with the Washington Post—not to fire Woodward, but to create a clearer relationship so that the paper's priority is primary and this kind of embarrassing incident never happens again. ¶ 8:32 AM 3 comments
Yesterday he announced that he was made privy to Valerie Wilson's CIA identity a month before Bob Novak was. (Typical Woodward; he always has to be first.)
Yet for months, he has been disparaging the importance of Patrick Fitzgerald's leak investigation.
As Howie Kurtz reported today in WashPo, Woodward "said on MSNBC's 'Hardball' in June that in the end 'there is going to be nothing to it. And it is a shame. And the special prosecutor in that case, his behavior, in my view, has been disgraceful.' In a National Public Radio interview in July, Woodward said that Fitzgerald made 'a big mistake' in going after Miller and that 'there is not the kind of compelling evidence that there was some crime involved here.'"
This is not rocket science; this is journalism 101. If you have a conflict of interest in a matter, you must disclose it while writing or talking about it. Woodward's criticism of the investigation now looks like nothing more than protecting a source. And, for that matter, himself.
I don't think you could find another reporter, for example, who ever thought that Fitzgerald's behavior was "disgraceful." That's strong language—and it sounds much more like the White House than like an independent, non-partisan commentator.
Perhaps Woodward felt free to call Fitzgerald "disgraceful" because the independent counsel wouldn't talk to him....whereas everyone who does talk to Woodward gets the kid-glove treatment.
Woodward has humiliated his employer. By placing his own story and his own source above the interests of the Washington Post, Woodward shows that his true loyalty is not to the paper, but to himself. And yet, managing editor Len Downie does nothing but say that there was a miscommunication, and that everything is cleared up now.
I think it'd be a better move for Downie to say that he's going to reevaluate the nature of Woodward's relationship with the Washington Post—not to fire Woodward, but to create a clearer relationship so that the paper's priority is primary and this kind of embarrassing incident never happens again. ¶ 8:32 AM 3 comments
And in the Department of Bad Omens
The location of the secret Shiite torture prison happens to be the former headquarters of top American administrator for Iraq, Paul Bremer....
Whoops! ¶ 8:26 AM 0 comments
Whoops! ¶ 8:26 AM 0 comments
The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel
...is to wrap yourself in the cloak of patriotism by saying that any criticism of the war is a criticism of the soldiers.
Funnily enough, that's what Dick Cheney did in his speech yesterday.
For example:
What we’re hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures – conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers – and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.
It takes some chutzpah, saying that opponents of the war are guilty of "cynical and pernicious falsehoods"....because doesn't that pretty well describe the Administration's case for war? And isn't that the reason those soldiers and Marines are out there every day, in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures, etc., etc.?
Five more killed and eleven wounded yesterday, by the way....(a story that doesn't even make the front page of NYTimes.com.). We're getting from 2000 to 2100 pretty fast. ¶ 8:19 AM 0 comments
Funnily enough, that's what Dick Cheney did in his speech yesterday.
For example:
What we’re hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures – conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers – and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.
It takes some chutzpah, saying that opponents of the war are guilty of "cynical and pernicious falsehoods"....because doesn't that pretty well describe the Administration's case for war? And isn't that the reason those soldiers and Marines are out there every day, in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures, etc., etc.?
Five more killed and eleven wounded yesterday, by the way....(a story that doesn't even make the front page of NYTimes.com.). We're getting from 2000 to 2100 pretty fast. ¶ 8:19 AM 0 comments
Calling Ross Douthat*
A young filmmaker named Evan Coyne Maloney has made a film, "Brainwashing 201," decrying the treatment of campus conservatives.
Weirdly enough, Maloney was encouraged in his dream of becoming a documentarian by Michael Moore, who is not known as a campus conservative.
And following the more typical path of a young conservative, he found a rich sugar daddy, Stuart Browning—described by the Chronicle of Higher Education as a "multimillionaire interested in politics"—to fund him....
Apparently in the film, Maloney does things like wander onto various college campuses and ask where the "men's center" is. (Which is kind of amusing, actually.) Sounds like Larry Summers might like this documentary....
___________________________________________________________________
* ¶ 8:11 AM 0 comments
Weirdly enough, Maloney was encouraged in his dream of becoming a documentarian by Michael Moore, who is not known as a campus conservative.
And following the more typical path of a young conservative, he found a rich sugar daddy, Stuart Browning—described by the Chronicle of Higher Education as a "multimillionaire interested in politics"—to fund him....
Apparently in the film, Maloney does things like wander onto various college campuses and ask where the "men's center" is. (Which is kind of amusing, actually.) Sounds like Larry Summers might like this documentary....
___________________________________________________________________
* ¶ 8:11 AM 0 comments
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Summers Strikes Back
Here is his response to the letter of protest from 24 faculty members over his alleged plans to fire FAS dean Bill Kirby:
"Dear Colleagues:
I write to share with you the text of a message I sent Tuesday in response to a statement reported in that day's Crimson from a group of current and former department chairs:
'I share your dismay at the irresponsible and misguided speculation reported in last Thursday's Crimson regarding my relationship with Dean Kirby, and I agree that these kinds of rumors are unhelpful and counterproductive as we work to achieve our common goals. Dean Kirby has my confidence and support as he leads the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in a series of critically important activities designed to advance the Faculty's academic priorities. I have been very much encouraged by the progress he and the faculty as a whole have made recently in curricular reform and other matters, and I look forward to our continued work together.'
I very much appreciate your ongoing commitment to our common goals.
Sincerely,
Larry Summers
Huh.
Couple of things. First, why exactly was the Crimson story "irresponsible" and "misguided"? (Note that Summers does not describe it as "wrong.") Seems to me that the paper was merely doing its job...and I haven't seen anyone question the accuracy of the story. And you'd better believe that, if they could, they would.
Dean Kirby has my confidence and support....
Yes, fine. But does he also plan to step down from his position at the end of the year, and has he negotiated this option with President Summers?
Or does he now find himself in a position of unanticipated strength?
¶ 11:19 PM 0 comments
"Dear Colleagues:
I write to share with you the text of a message I sent Tuesday in response to a statement reported in that day's Crimson from a group of current and former department chairs:
'I share your dismay at the irresponsible and misguided speculation reported in last Thursday's Crimson regarding my relationship with Dean Kirby, and I agree that these kinds of rumors are unhelpful and counterproductive as we work to achieve our common goals. Dean Kirby has my confidence and support as he leads the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in a series of critically important activities designed to advance the Faculty's academic priorities. I have been very much encouraged by the progress he and the faculty as a whole have made recently in curricular reform and other matters, and I look forward to our continued work together.'
I very much appreciate your ongoing commitment to our common goals.
Sincerely,
Larry Summers
Huh.
Couple of things. First, why exactly was the Crimson story "irresponsible" and "misguided"? (Note that Summers does not describe it as "wrong.") Seems to me that the paper was merely doing its job...and I haven't seen anyone question the accuracy of the story. And you'd better believe that, if they could, they would.
Dean Kirby has my confidence and support....
Yes, fine. But does he also plan to step down from his position at the end of the year, and has he negotiated this option with President Summers?
Or does he now find himself in a position of unanticipated strength?
¶ 11:19 PM 0 comments
Drip-Drip
Reuters has followed up on Marcella Bombardieri's Globe piece about the faculty protest letter at Harvard, and you can find it here, on CNN.com.
This isn't quite at the New York Times' level of attention...yet. But it's getting there.... ¶ 11:13 PM 1 comments
This isn't quite at the New York Times' level of attention...yet. But it's getting there.... ¶ 11:13 PM 1 comments
Maybe Fairway Was Right
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force
By Dana Milbank and Justin BlumWashington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; Page A01
50 Cent—The Next Nicole Richie
Now it's 50 Cent's turn to get into the publishing game; he's creating a publishing label called "G-Unit Books," in collaboration with MTV and Simon & Schuster.
According to the website ContactMusic.com, "The 2007 project will focus on the gritty themes covered in 50 Cent's music. 'These tales will tell the truth about The Life; the sex, guns and cash; the brutal highs and short lives of the players on the streets.'"
As the Times puts it, "Louise Burke, the publisher of Pocket Books, said the stories would be written by authors recruited by the publisher in collaboration with 50 Cent."
In other words, they'll be publishing books not written by their authors for an (MTV) audience that doesn't read.
They're going to make a bundle... ¶ 8:11 AM 1 comments
According to the website ContactMusic.com, "The 2007 project will focus on the gritty themes covered in 50 Cent's music. 'These tales will tell the truth about The Life; the sex, guns and cash; the brutal highs and short lives of the players on the streets.'"
As the Times puts it, "Louise Burke, the publisher of Pocket Books, said the stories would be written by authors recruited by the publisher in collaboration with 50 Cent."
In other words, they'll be publishing books not written by their authors for an (MTV) audience that doesn't read.
They're going to make a bundle... ¶ 8:11 AM 1 comments
I Torture, You Torture, We Torture....
So now we're discovering that the Iraqi governments we installed have built secret torture chambers.
Boy, this war just gets better and better, doesn't it? And isn't it strange that all the people who once couldn't wait to crow about our success in Iraq—Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice—have now moved on or gone underground?
The obvious point to make here is that we don't exactly have the moral high ground. When our vice-president is secretly lobbying Congress to kill a measure banning torture, it's a little tough to crack down on Shiite Iraquis torturing their Sunni enemies..... ¶ 7:57 AM 0 comments
Boy, this war just gets better and better, doesn't it? And isn't it strange that all the people who once couldn't wait to crow about our success in Iraq—Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice—have now moved on or gone underground?
The obvious point to make here is that we don't exactly have the moral high ground. When our vice-president is secretly lobbying Congress to kill a measure banning torture, it's a little tough to crack down on Shiite Iraquis torturing their Sunni enemies..... ¶ 7:57 AM 0 comments
At Harvard, It's Like Deja Vu All Over Again
In the Globe, Marcella Bombardieri reports on the anti-Summers letter signed by 24 Harvard professors.
Bombardieri reports that the letter was signed by 17 department chairs and seven former department chairs.
Summers' spokeswoman John Longbrake tells the Globe that Summers sent a quick response. "''He expressed his confidence and support for Dean Kirby, and said he looked forward to continuing to work together."
But Longbrake did not release the text of the letter.
(Incidentally, kudos to Longbrake, whom I'm told is a good guy. He seems to be doing his best to maintain a cordial and open atmosphere between Mass Hall and the press in what must surely be a delicate situation.)
The professors should release the letter...because I'd like to see if there's any language in it ensuring that Kirby will remain as dean. My hunch? That the language it contains is carefully crafted, so that there will be no contradiction when Kirby departs as dean at the end of this school year...
...which I still think will happen. Although he is clearly in a stronger position now than before the Crimson broke the news that Summers had planned to fire him. If he's smart, he'll use this leverage to get a larger golden parachute out of Mass Hall.
(Note to Crimson: How about an article adding up how much Summers' various faculty payouts, severance packages, and controversies have cost the university? You can start with the $1 million donation directed to Skip Gates' DuBois Institute, as reported in Harvard Rules. Perhaps you can make it the fourth part of the your imminent series on Harvard's financial fortunes.)
By the way, multiple sources tell me that Summers offered Kirby's job to Drew Faust, dean of the Radcliffe Institute, during the last school year. Faust declined...but Summers told a number of professors that he planned to make Faust dean of the FAS. ¶ 7:31 AM 0 comments
Bombardieri reports that the letter was signed by 17 department chairs and seven former department chairs.
Summers' spokeswoman John Longbrake tells the Globe that Summers sent a quick response. "''He expressed his confidence and support for Dean Kirby, and said he looked forward to continuing to work together."
But Longbrake did not release the text of the letter.
(Incidentally, kudos to Longbrake, whom I'm told is a good guy. He seems to be doing his best to maintain a cordial and open atmosphere between Mass Hall and the press in what must surely be a delicate situation.)
The professors should release the letter...because I'd like to see if there's any language in it ensuring that Kirby will remain as dean. My hunch? That the language it contains is carefully crafted, so that there will be no contradiction when Kirby departs as dean at the end of this school year...
...which I still think will happen. Although he is clearly in a stronger position now than before the Crimson broke the news that Summers had planned to fire him. If he's smart, he'll use this leverage to get a larger golden parachute out of Mass Hall.
(Note to Crimson: How about an article adding up how much Summers' various faculty payouts, severance packages, and controversies have cost the university? You can start with the $1 million donation directed to Skip Gates' DuBois Institute, as reported in Harvard Rules. Perhaps you can make it the fourth part of the your imminent series on Harvard's financial fortunes.)
By the way, multiple sources tell me that Summers offered Kirby's job to Drew Faust, dean of the Radcliffe Institute, during the last school year. Faust declined...but Summers told a number of professors that he planned to make Faust dean of the FAS. ¶ 7:31 AM 0 comments
My Favorite Headline of Late
"Oil Companies Make Record $96 Billion in 2005 Profits—Seek Patent on Hurricane-Making Machine"
—seen on the electronic billboard over Fairway Market, at 128th Street ¶ 7:27 AM 0 comments
—seen on the electronic billboard over Fairway Market, at 128th Street ¶ 7:27 AM 0 comments
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Yale Gets in on the Act
Meanwhile, in New Haven, Yale has announced a new plan for greater diversity in faculty hiring.
As InsideHigherEd.com puts it, "In contrast to many diversity plans in higher education, Yale set out actual quantitative goals. The e-mail sets the bar at 30 new minority faculty members over seven years – which would be about a 30 percent increase – and 30 new female faculty members in departments where they are underrepresented, which would be a 20 percent increase overall, and an 83 percent increase in the targeted departments, notably physical sciences."
I don't know enough about the situation at Yale to comment on this extensively, but there does strike me as something troubling about this. These numbers are, simply, quotas. And while I think there is great importance in having a faculty with ethnic and gender diversity, by stipulating a specific number to be hired, Yale concedes—it's arguable, I know, but I think this is true—that the identies of those professors are more important than their talents.
(As opposed to, say, saying that Yale plans to increase faculty diversity, but without setting quotas.)
And setting specific targets like this will, of course, raise the usual suspicions about the merits of those who are hired.
Don't get me wrong: I'm highly supportive of finding excellent female and minority professors to teach at Yale, and of the general goal of making academia more diverse. I'm just not sure that this is the right way to go about it. ¶ 8:53 AM 0 comments
As InsideHigherEd.com puts it, "In contrast to many diversity plans in higher education, Yale set out actual quantitative goals. The e-mail sets the bar at 30 new minority faculty members over seven years – which would be about a 30 percent increase – and 30 new female faculty members in departments where they are underrepresented, which would be a 20 percent increase overall, and an 83 percent increase in the targeted departments, notably physical sciences."
I don't know enough about the situation at Yale to comment on this extensively, but there does strike me as something troubling about this. These numbers are, simply, quotas. And while I think there is great importance in having a faculty with ethnic and gender diversity, by stipulating a specific number to be hired, Yale concedes—it's arguable, I know, but I think this is true—that the identies of those professors are more important than their talents.
(As opposed to, say, saying that Yale plans to increase faculty diversity, but without setting quotas.)
And setting specific targets like this will, of course, raise the usual suspicions about the merits of those who are hired.
Don't get me wrong: I'm highly supportive of finding excellent female and minority professors to teach at Yale, and of the general goal of making academia more diverse. I'm just not sure that this is the right way to go about it. ¶ 8:53 AM 0 comments
Tilting Against a Really Large Windmill
Twenty years ago, my friend Ari Posner wrote a classic story in The New Republic about ghostwriting, pointing out that what was once considered a shameful secret in Washington had become commonplace. Once, words were so valued as a sign of intellectual independence and personal gravitas that to admit that others had put them in your mouth was emasculating. Now, a ghostwriter had become a sign of one's own importance; you were too busy to sit down and wrestle with something as painstaking as language, and besides, anyone could do it.
Now, of course, ghostwriters are so taken for granted, they are not even remarked upon.
I know it's curmudgeonly to insist that there's something weird about this...
...but how can the New York Times write an entire piece about Nicole Richie and her new novel, "The Truth about Diamonds"—yes, that's her on the cover—without even mentioning the word "ghostwriter"?
Okay, the Times does include the clause, "which Ms. Richie said she wrote herself." But who could possibly believe that? A little more skepticism would be in order...except that the reporter clearly doesn't think the issue is important.
Almost as bizarre to me is the adoration her young fans, waiting in line to have their books signed, manifested.
As one teenage boy told the Times, "Her body is perfect, her hair is perfect, her outfit is perfect, her makeup is perfect. I love everything about her."
"Her outfit is perfect?" This, from a teenage boy?
We live in strange times.... ¶ 8:09 AM 5 comments
Now, of course, ghostwriters are so taken for granted, they are not even remarked upon.
I know it's curmudgeonly to insist that there's something weird about this...
...but how can the New York Times write an entire piece about Nicole Richie and her new novel, "The Truth about Diamonds"—yes, that's her on the cover—without even mentioning the word "ghostwriter"?
Okay, the Times does include the clause, "which Ms. Richie said she wrote herself." But who could possibly believe that? A little more skepticism would be in order...except that the reporter clearly doesn't think the issue is important.
Almost as bizarre to me is the adoration her young fans, waiting in line to have their books signed, manifested.
As one teenage boy told the Times, "Her body is perfect, her hair is perfect, her outfit is perfect, her makeup is perfect. I love everything about her."
"Her outfit is perfect?" This, from a teenage boy?
We live in strange times.... ¶ 8:09 AM 5 comments
Shots in the Dark (Literally)
Thanks to all of you who wrote pointing out that this site mysteriously vanished last night. I think it was due to some kind of maintenance by Blogger.com.
But if I were a paranoid man, I'd wonder....
Anyway, things should be okay now. Thanks for your patience. ¶ 8:03 AM 1 comments
But if I were a paranoid man, I'd wonder....
Anyway, things should be okay now. Thanks for your patience. ¶ 8:03 AM 1 comments
Backbiting?
The Crimson reports that a group of professors has begun circulating a statement critical of Larry Summers for his handling of the Bill Kirby affair.
Referring to the Crimson's scoop that Summers planned to fire Kirby last year, before his own troubles arose, the statement reads: "We think it is highly improper if, as reported, the President of Harvard has been expressing to members of the faculty his ‘deep dissatisfaction’ with the Dean of Arts and Sciences. It undercuts the work and the morale of colleagues within FAS [the Faculty of Arts and Sciences] and damages the institution as a whole.”
Seventeen professors have signed the statement so far; some of the signatories—Cynthia Friend, Mary Waters, Richard Thomas—were among Summers' most vocal critics during last spring's controversy.
What are we to make of this?
On the one hand, I've heard numerous stories of Summers criticizing professors he doesn't like when he's with professors he does; I've even heard of him criticizing specific professors in front of students. (Richard Thomas, for example.) Summers also has a habit for giving unflattering nicknames to professors of whom he's not fond.
Which is, indeed, unprofessional.
On the other hand, Summers certainly has the right to fire Bill Kirby if he thinks Kirby's not working out.
And on a third hand, since Summers appointed Kirby, the buck does need to stop somewhere, doesn't it?
File this statement under the heading, "Continuing Dissatisfaction with Summers' Leadership." ¶ 7:43 AM 0 comments
Referring to the Crimson's scoop that Summers planned to fire Kirby last year, before his own troubles arose, the statement reads: "We think it is highly improper if, as reported, the President of Harvard has been expressing to members of the faculty his ‘deep dissatisfaction’ with the Dean of Arts and Sciences. It undercuts the work and the morale of colleagues within FAS [the Faculty of Arts and Sciences] and damages the institution as a whole.”
Seventeen professors have signed the statement so far; some of the signatories—Cynthia Friend, Mary Waters, Richard Thomas—were among Summers' most vocal critics during last spring's controversy.
What are we to make of this?
On the one hand, I've heard numerous stories of Summers criticizing professors he doesn't like when he's with professors he does; I've even heard of him criticizing specific professors in front of students. (Richard Thomas, for example.) Summers also has a habit for giving unflattering nicknames to professors of whom he's not fond.
Which is, indeed, unprofessional.
On the other hand, Summers certainly has the right to fire Bill Kirby if he thinks Kirby's not working out.
And on a third hand, since Summers appointed Kirby, the buck does need to stop somewhere, doesn't it?
File this statement under the heading, "Continuing Dissatisfaction with Summers' Leadership." ¶ 7:43 AM 0 comments
Monday, November 14, 2005
The Things Iraq Veterans Carry
I saw a powerful and moving documentary last night about the problems faced by soldiers coming back from Iraq.
Called "The Ground Truth—The Human Cost of War," the film traced the soldier's arc, from being recruited to being transformed into killing machines to returning to the United States.
It's not a pretty picture. These men and women are trained to kill, but in Iraq, they find themselves killing people who either may not be enemies, or definitely are not enemies.
One soldier tells of shooting a woman approaching his Humvee. He didn't know if she was a threat, and so his training took over. He fired, and then other Americans pumped a fusillade of bullets into her.
As the woman fell to the ground, her hands fell outward to reveal that she was carrying a white flag.
Another soldier tells of seeing a little girl, standing a few feet in front of him, getting her head blown off.
These are memories from which one can not escape.
When they return to the United States, these soldiers face an immensely difficult transition. Nonetheless, they are getting little help from the army, which doesn't want to acknowledge how horrific the Iraq experience is, and the Veteran's Administration, which has been hit by severe funding cutbacks. Meanwhile, most Americans are oblivious to their problems.
It is all disturbingly analogous to Vietnam. Watching the film, I couldn't help but think, "How can this be happening again?"
This film should be mandatory viewing for President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and all the other non-combatants who thought that preemptive war was a great idea.
Check out the film website above. We must do better this time. ¶ 9:44 AM 3 comments
Called "The Ground Truth—The Human Cost of War," the film traced the soldier's arc, from being recruited to being transformed into killing machines to returning to the United States.
It's not a pretty picture. These men and women are trained to kill, but in Iraq, they find themselves killing people who either may not be enemies, or definitely are not enemies.
One soldier tells of shooting a woman approaching his Humvee. He didn't know if she was a threat, and so his training took over. He fired, and then other Americans pumped a fusillade of bullets into her.
As the woman fell to the ground, her hands fell outward to reveal that she was carrying a white flag.
Another soldier tells of seeing a little girl, standing a few feet in front of him, getting her head blown off.
These are memories from which one can not escape.
When they return to the United States, these soldiers face an immensely difficult transition. Nonetheless, they are getting little help from the army, which doesn't want to acknowledge how horrific the Iraq experience is, and the Veteran's Administration, which has been hit by severe funding cutbacks. Meanwhile, most Americans are oblivious to their problems.
It is all disturbingly analogous to Vietnam. Watching the film, I couldn't help but think, "How can this be happening again?"
This film should be mandatory viewing for President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and all the other non-combatants who thought that preemptive war was a great idea.
Check out the film website above. We must do better this time. ¶ 9:44 AM 3 comments
Where's Larry?
In the Globe, Marcella Bombardieri looks at Larry Summers' strangely low profile this year.
"Has the president regained his stride?" Bombardieri asks. Or "are Summers critics just waiting for a new gaffe on which to pounce?"
Well, of course the low profile is a deliberate media strategy on Summers' part. I don't think one could say that Summers has regained his stride until he feels he can start appearing in the press again....
Meanwhile, let's play a little Harvard trivia game.
1) In addition to Bill Kirby, which Harvard dean wouldn't be at all surprised to be fired before year's end?
2) Which mega-rich Harvard donor is said to be so pissed off about the potential Larry Ellison donation, he may be the primary reason Harvard has been holding off on accepting Ellison's proffered $120 million?
3) What magazine article is Massachusetts Hall so concerned about that it's volunteered preemptive press briefings?
4) Which Harvard governing board has become increasingly frustrated with the president and assertive of its own power? (Hint: It's not the Corporation.)
5) What university's ranking in a certain national magazine annual list will be adversely affected by falling percentage rates of alumni giving?
6) Which university vice-president is in President Summers' doghouse, and why?
7) Which university's capital campaign could best be described as "on-again, off-again"? ¶ 9:01 AM 1 comments
"Has the president regained his stride?" Bombardieri asks. Or "are Summers critics just waiting for a new gaffe on which to pounce?"
Well, of course the low profile is a deliberate media strategy on Summers' part. I don't think one could say that Summers has regained his stride until he feels he can start appearing in the press again....
Meanwhile, let's play a little Harvard trivia game.
1) In addition to Bill Kirby, which Harvard dean wouldn't be at all surprised to be fired before year's end?
2) Which mega-rich Harvard donor is said to be so pissed off about the potential Larry Ellison donation, he may be the primary reason Harvard has been holding off on accepting Ellison's proffered $120 million?
3) What magazine article is Massachusetts Hall so concerned about that it's volunteered preemptive press briefings?
4) Which Harvard governing board has become increasingly frustrated with the president and assertive of its own power? (Hint: It's not the Corporation.)
5) What university's ranking in a certain national magazine annual list will be adversely affected by falling percentage rates of alumni giving?
6) Which university vice-president is in President Summers' doghouse, and why?
7) Which university's capital campaign could best be described as "on-again, off-again"? ¶ 9:01 AM 1 comments
The Blogolution Continues
AndrewSullivan.com will soon be hosted by Time.com.
As Andrew points out, this isn't the first time one website has purchased a blog; Slate did it with Kausfiles.
But since Slate was always an online venture, and Time is the definition of MSM, this feels like a moment.... ¶ 8:49 AM 0 comments
As Andrew points out, this isn't the first time one website has purchased a blog; Slate did it with Kausfiles.
But since Slate was always an online venture, and Time is the definition of MSM, this feels like a moment.... ¶ 8:49 AM 0 comments
Gawker Jokes about Attacks on Women
In the Times, David Carr agrees with me that sometimes, Gawker just isn't funny—like when it makes jokes about Peter Braunstein, the former fashion writer who's now a suspect in a violent attack on a New York woman. (He broke into her apartment by dressing up as a fireman on Halloween.)
Good for Carr (who, full disclosure, once wrote about me, though not particularly flatteringly) to call out Gawker, something everyone should be doing.
A lot of people read Gawker; a friend in magazine publishing told me that it's become a must-read for everyone in that business. But magazine writers can be a homogenous crowd whose immaturity can be self-perpetuating. (I mean, just look at Radar magazine...which just happens to have a weirdly hostile but mutually dependent relationship with Gawker.)
Gawker's courageous response to Carr?
Silence.....
__________________________________________________________________
P.S. Gawker has now taken note of Carr's piece, dismissing it as "meta-media analysis" whose point is that "blogs are insensitive, as we are wont to be," which of course makes it fine then.
Nonetheless, do I detect a subtle shift in Gawker's writing about Peter Blaustein? A little more, um, maturity? ¶ 8:19 AM 4 comments
Good for Carr (who, full disclosure, once wrote about me, though not particularly flatteringly) to call out Gawker, something everyone should be doing.
A lot of people read Gawker; a friend in magazine publishing told me that it's become a must-read for everyone in that business. But magazine writers can be a homogenous crowd whose immaturity can be self-perpetuating. (I mean, just look at Radar magazine...which just happens to have a weirdly hostile but mutually dependent relationship with Gawker.)
Gawker's courageous response to Carr?
Silence.....
__________________________________________________________________
P.S. Gawker has now taken note of Carr's piece, dismissing it as "meta-media analysis" whose point is that "blogs are insensitive, as we are wont to be," which of course makes it fine then.
Nonetheless, do I detect a subtle shift in Gawker's writing about Peter Blaustein? A little more, um, maturity? ¶ 8:19 AM 4 comments
"Tragic Victims of SUV Menace"
That's the headline on a New York Daily News story reporting on how SUVs have made New York City streets increasingly dangerous, especially for pedestrians.
According to the Daily News...
1) Pedestrians are twice as likely to be killed when they're hit by an SUV than when they're hit by a car.
2) While the total number of pedestrian deaths in NYC has falled by 18% in the last five years, the numbers of deaths by SUV have surged 27%.
3) SUVs made up about 15% of the cars in New York last year—but caused 26% of pedestrian deaths from passenger vehicles.
4) When a car and an SUV collide and someone dies, 81% of the time the victim is the car driver.
When is someone going to take the logical and urgent next step, and file a class action lawsuit against the manufacturers of SUVs? Irresponsible and dangerous, they have degraded the quality of all our lives. ¶ 7:57 AM 0 comments
According to the Daily News...
1) Pedestrians are twice as likely to be killed when they're hit by an SUV than when they're hit by a car.
2) While the total number of pedestrian deaths in NYC has falled by 18% in the last five years, the numbers of deaths by SUV have surged 27%.
3) SUVs made up about 15% of the cars in New York last year—but caused 26% of pedestrian deaths from passenger vehicles.
4) When a car and an SUV collide and someone dies, 81% of the time the victim is the car driver.
When is someone going to take the logical and urgent next step, and file a class action lawsuit against the manufacturers of SUVs? Irresponsible and dangerous, they have degraded the quality of all our lives. ¶ 7:57 AM 0 comments
Friday, November 11, 2005
Remembering the Woman at the Washington Zoo
Last night I went to the Border's bookstore in the Time-Warner Center to hear Timothy Noah speak about "The Woman at the Washington Zoo," the collection of writings by his late wife, Marjorie Williams.
Williams died of cancer after a three-and-a-half year illness earlier this year.
I know Tim slightly, from various journalism things, but I met Marjorie just once, at a friend's wedding. In just a few minutes of conversation, I was struck by her aura of kindness. She made you feel like an old friend. I wouldn't have wanted Marjorie to write about me—I would have told her everything, and the resulting portrait would probably have been more honest than I would have liked to read.
Tim spoke about the book for a few minutes—how it came to be, how it was structured. Then Katha Pollit, columnist for the Nation, and Jill Abramson, Washington bureau chief for the New York Times, read from two pieces: a Washington Post essay Williams wrote about the Washington snipers, and a famous Vanity Fair profile of Barbara Bush called simply "The Wife."
The readings reminded me that Williams really was a lovely writer, with a keen eye for detail and a great talent for letting people reveal themselves through the meticulous chronicling of their own words and actions.
Tim took some questions afterward, which I thought was extremely brave of him. At every reading, there's always someone who asks a question that's not quite appropriate, or pushes the envelope a little. And so it was last night, when one woman stood up and asked Tim, "As a caregiver, can you talk about what surprised you about the experience of your wife's illness?"
Imagine getting a question like that in front of a crowd of about 75 people.
To his great credit, Tim handled it gracefully. He answered that he didn't want to get too deeply into that, but that he was surprised by the fact that, though the years of Marjorie's illness—all the hospital visits, the treatments, the changes in his wife—were incredibly hard, losing her was still much, much more difficult—the feeling of being without her was much more painful. That's the power of grief, I guess, he said.
Which I thought was a terribly eloquent and quite courageous answer.
Two other things: I loved that Tim included a piece in the collection that was Marjorie's first piece for the Washington Post Style section. It had sentimental value for him, he said, because he called her up to compliment her on the piece, and that phone call led to their first date.
And I appreciated the fact that Tim declined to sentimentalize his wife. He told a slightly mordant story about his wife's integrity as a journalist. Washington is a town, he said, where there's great emphasis on social fakery. If someone writes a hatchet job about you, standard procedure is too call them up the next day and ask them to lunch.
After Marjorie died, he said, only one of her subjects had sent a note of condolence. Which was to say that her writing cut so deeply, Washington animals could not even fake their regrets.
It was a tough story, but an honest one, and I suspect that Williams wouldn't have had it any other way.
After leaving the reading, I bumped into a friend on the subway, and told her about the event. I guess I was slightly quiet about it, because she asked why I'd gone, when it seemed to have made me sad.
I had to think about the answer for a minute.
Partly for Tim and Marjorie, I said. But partly because journalism is a community of sorts. Often it's not a very nice community, filled with jealousies and rivalries and sniping and backstabbing. (That's what happens in a competitive field where there aren't a ton of jobs to go around and not everyone in it is that, um, balanced.)
But Tim and Marjorie were nice, and they brought a lot of people together. (The packed crowd last night was evidence of that.) They represented some of the most positive qualities of the journalism community—friendship, continuity, supportiveness.
And now Marjorie is gone. And as part of that community, I wanted to pay my respects. ¶ 8:26 AM 0 comments
Williams died of cancer after a three-and-a-half year illness earlier this year.
I know Tim slightly, from various journalism things, but I met Marjorie just once, at a friend's wedding. In just a few minutes of conversation, I was struck by her aura of kindness. She made you feel like an old friend. I wouldn't have wanted Marjorie to write about me—I would have told her everything, and the resulting portrait would probably have been more honest than I would have liked to read.
Tim spoke about the book for a few minutes—how it came to be, how it was structured. Then Katha Pollit, columnist for the Nation, and Jill Abramson, Washington bureau chief for the New York Times, read from two pieces: a Washington Post essay Williams wrote about the Washington snipers, and a famous Vanity Fair profile of Barbara Bush called simply "The Wife."
The readings reminded me that Williams really was a lovely writer, with a keen eye for detail and a great talent for letting people reveal themselves through the meticulous chronicling of their own words and actions.
Tim took some questions afterward, which I thought was extremely brave of him. At every reading, there's always someone who asks a question that's not quite appropriate, or pushes the envelope a little. And so it was last night, when one woman stood up and asked Tim, "As a caregiver, can you talk about what surprised you about the experience of your wife's illness?"
Imagine getting a question like that in front of a crowd of about 75 people.
To his great credit, Tim handled it gracefully. He answered that he didn't want to get too deeply into that, but that he was surprised by the fact that, though the years of Marjorie's illness—all the hospital visits, the treatments, the changes in his wife—were incredibly hard, losing her was still much, much more difficult—the feeling of being without her was much more painful. That's the power of grief, I guess, he said.
Which I thought was a terribly eloquent and quite courageous answer.
Two other things: I loved that Tim included a piece in the collection that was Marjorie's first piece for the Washington Post Style section. It had sentimental value for him, he said, because he called her up to compliment her on the piece, and that phone call led to their first date.
And I appreciated the fact that Tim declined to sentimentalize his wife. He told a slightly mordant story about his wife's integrity as a journalist. Washington is a town, he said, where there's great emphasis on social fakery. If someone writes a hatchet job about you, standard procedure is too call them up the next day and ask them to lunch.
After Marjorie died, he said, only one of her subjects had sent a note of condolence. Which was to say that her writing cut so deeply, Washington animals could not even fake their regrets.
It was a tough story, but an honest one, and I suspect that Williams wouldn't have had it any other way.
After leaving the reading, I bumped into a friend on the subway, and told her about the event. I guess I was slightly quiet about it, because she asked why I'd gone, when it seemed to have made me sad.
I had to think about the answer for a minute.
Partly for Tim and Marjorie, I said. But partly because journalism is a community of sorts. Often it's not a very nice community, filled with jealousies and rivalries and sniping and backstabbing. (That's what happens in a competitive field where there aren't a ton of jobs to go around and not everyone in it is that, um, balanced.)
But Tim and Marjorie were nice, and they brought a lot of people together. (The packed crowd last night was evidence of that.) They represented some of the most positive qualities of the journalism community—friendship, continuity, supportiveness.
And now Marjorie is gone. And as part of that community, I wanted to pay my respects. ¶ 8:26 AM 0 comments
Another Reason Not to Go to Movie Theaters
You can get shot there.
After watching 50 Cents' "Get Rich or Die Tryin'," 30-year-old Shelton Flowers was shot several times in the movie theater men's room. He staggered out and collapsed near a bank of video games.
In a mini-tragic sort of way, this is quite a loaded cultural moment.
No pun intended. ¶ 8:12 AM 0 comments
After watching 50 Cents' "Get Rich or Die Tryin'," 30-year-old Shelton Flowers was shot several times in the movie theater men's room. He staggered out and collapsed near a bank of video games.
In a mini-tragic sort of way, this is quite a loaded cultural moment.
No pun intended. ¶ 8:12 AM 0 comments
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Baylor's Anti-Gay Bigotry
Tim Smith, a Baylor alumnus, has been asked to resign from a Baylor business school advisory committee because he is gay.
According to InsideHigherEd.com, business school dean Terry Maness explained, “Recently, I asked a member of our advisory board to step down because of his alternative lifestyle. We must be sensitive to the position of our affiliated denomination, the Baptist General Convention of Texas, which has, on previous occasions, stated that a homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with most Baptist interpretations of scripture.”
I'm not gay, but if I were, I'd be infuriated by that trvializing and demeaning term, "alternative lifestyle."
Heck, I'm not gay, and I'm still infuriated by it.
Smith, by the way, was a graduate of the Harvard Business School who had given $65,000 of his own money to Baylor and raised about another $60,000, in addition to speaking at the school annually for the past five years.....but because he is gay, none of that matters. ¶ 9:00 AM 0 comments
According to InsideHigherEd.com, business school dean Terry Maness explained, “Recently, I asked a member of our advisory board to step down because of his alternative lifestyle. We must be sensitive to the position of our affiliated denomination, the Baptist General Convention of Texas, which has, on previous occasions, stated that a homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with most Baptist interpretations of scripture.”
I'm not gay, but if I were, I'd be infuriated by that trvializing and demeaning term, "alternative lifestyle."
Heck, I'm not gay, and I'm still infuriated by it.
Smith, by the way, was a graduate of the Harvard Business School who had given $65,000 of his own money to Baylor and raised about another $60,000, in addition to speaking at the school annually for the past five years.....but because he is gay, none of that matters. ¶ 9:00 AM 0 comments
The Woman at the Washington Zoo
We've been hearing a lot about Maureen Dowd lately.
I wish we were hearing more about Marjorie Williams. ¶ 8:47 AM 0 comments
I wish we were hearing more about Marjorie Williams. ¶ 8:47 AM 0 comments
Harvard: The Chaos Continues, Part II
It's fascinating to read some of the comments in the Crimson story on the fate of FAS dean Bill Kirby and reflect on what they suggest about the current Harvard culture.
As Evan H. Jacobs and Anton S. Troianovski report—I ask, again, why every Crimson reporter feels the need for a middle initial? How many Anton Troianovski's* can there be?—
Several sources expressed concern that the news of Summers’ plans was intentionally divulged to gauge Faculty sentiment for Kirby’s possible departure.
“I would hope that what we are seeing here is not a leak intended to see which way the wind blows,” said another FAS chair who wished to remain anonymous.
A trial balloon? I love it. Where would such a tactic come from? Washington, of course. And the fact that several professors suspect such a maneuver shows that they have grown savvy to the elements of Washington political culture Summers has brought to Cambridge.
It's an argument I made in Harvard Rules. In a chapter called "Washington on the Charles," I wrote that "Summers had come to Cambridge after a decade in Washington, and he carried the culture of his f
As Evan H. Jacobs and Anton S. Troianovski report—I ask, again, why every Crimson reporter feels the need for a middle initial? How many Anton Troianovski's* can there be?—
Several sources expressed concern that the news of Summers’ plans was intentionally divulged to gauge Faculty sentiment for Kirby’s possible departure.
“I would hope that what we are seeing here is not a leak intended to see which way the wind blows,” said another FAS chair who wished to remain anonymous.
A trial balloon? I love it. Where would such a tactic come from? Washington, of course. And the fact that several professors suspect such a maneuver shows that they have grown savvy to the elements of Washington political culture Summers has brought to Cambridge.
It's an argument I made in Harvard Rules. In a chapter called "Washington on the Charles," I wrote that "Summers had come to Cambridge after a decade in Washington, and he carried the culture of his f