Shots In The Dark
Here She Is...
The face transplant recipient....
She apparently agreed to be photographed by
the Sunday Times of London...
While Larry Sumers Is Off at Davos...
...and Bill Kirby twists in the wind....
Stanford has posted
dozens of lectures, interviews, speeches, performances and more on iTunes.
And they're all free....
It's this kind of exciting initiative that shows why the chaos at Harvard matters: It's not just a getting of what isn't happening at Harvard, but what is happening at other universities. I'll bet that no one at Harvard has even considered such a move. And with a new dean in the works, I'd say that Harvard—if it even were able to do such a thing—is at least a year behind Stanford.
Which makes me repeat my suggestion to the Harvard community: If you don't stand and fight, the Summers presidency—a time of scandal and controversy, anger and frustration—may prove to be the years during which Harvard loses its foremost spot in American education.
Welcome to the new world, Harvard. There's no room for complacency....
Shleifer and Summers: A Conspiracy Theory
Why hasn't Larry Summers taken any action against his friend Andrei Shleifer, despite the fact that Shleifer has admitted to conspiring to defraud the federal government, cost Harvard tens of millions of dollars, and brought shame and scandal upon the university?
Well, what if—and bear with me here for a moment, as I speculate—what if Shleifer had something on Summers that, if it were publicly known, would topple the Harvard president? And the disclosure, or non-disclosure, of this information were in some way linked to a satisfactory resolution of Shleifer's awkward situation?
Might that explain why Larry Summers has not only refused to take action against his fellow economist, but has repeatedly intervened on Shleifer's behalf?
It might.
What could such potent information be?
Perhaps it could be that Summers knew that Shleifer was investing in Russia in violation of Harvard and federal ethics rules. And did nothing about it.
I emphasize that this is just speculation on my part, an attempt to explain a sequence of events that seems otherwise inexplicable; I have no insider information, no secret facts. There are other possibilities: friendship. A belief by Summers that Shleifer did nothing wrong. Who knows?
But this scenario does make a certain sense...and David McClintick hinted as much in his excellent piece for Institutional Investor, "
How Harvard Lost Russia"....
I quote, and add italics:
"Off duty and in swimsuits, the mentor [Summers] and his protégé [Shleifer] strolled the beach at Truro. For years, with their families, they had summered together along this stretch of Massachusetts' famed Cape Cod. Close personally and professionally, the two friends confided in each other the most private matters of family and finance. The topic of the day was the former Soviet Union.
"You've got to be careful," the mentor, Lawrence Summers, warned his protégé, Andrei Shleifer. "There's a lot of corruption in Russia...."
This quote does not appear to have come from Summers, but from Shleifer or perhaps his wife, Nancy Zimmerman. Could it be construed as a shot across the bow?
We could say more....
The plot does thicken, doesn't it?
Bill Kirby, In Conclusion
So...what to make of the ouster of FAS dean Bill Kirby?
Some thoughts.
1) As embarrassing as it is to Kirby, this craziness is also embarrassing to Summers, who lost control of this story. The Crimson broke the story on Friday night, publishing its web article about half an hour before Kirby and Summers released their statements of pap.
Even I can not believe that Larry Summers really wanted this to happen while he was off in Davos...although I have heard some feedback suggesting that he likes that idea, because it means he's busy getting adulatory press for sitting on panels and being pithy about India while the Kirby mess erupts back home in cold Cambridge.
2) The Crimson is becoming a real problem for Larry Summers, and the reasons why should worry the Harvard president. In its tick-tock of last January's events, the Crimson found people inside Mass Hall willing to talk. And in its Kirby scoop, the Crimson found sources close to the Corporation willing to talk.
What does this mean? That people in Mass Hall and close to the Corporation are no longer covering for Summers. No, even stronger, I think: That people very close to Summers have turned against him.
Larry Summers can no longer assume that his innermost councils are safe from disclosure. That makes governance a very difficult proposition.
3) Who will be the next dean? Summers has learned that putting in a weak figure can create more problems than it solves. But what strong figure would want the job? One would have to ask the Corporation for guarantees of independence from Mass Hall...and, of course, once that person took office, those guarantees would be unenforceable and, therefore, worthless.
One possibility: Summers appoints a strong figure who happens to be already close to him. But would the faculty work with/trust such a figure?
Another scenario: scientist Jeremy Knowles comes back for a year to try to rescue the curricular review and position himself as a possible replacement for Larry Summers...but would Summers really want the crafty Knowles back in power?
4) The curricular review has already had a pretty tepid base of support. That is instantly weaker. After all, the passage of that review would depend on deals cut with the dean, promises made, barters agreed-upon. All of those are now dead letters, as any incoming dean would never agree to honor promises made by his predecessor in exchange for votes.
Since Bill Kirby was essentially the only person who had a self-interest in pushing for the curricular review, who will be its advocate now?
It is impossible not to conclude that this review—one of Larry Summers' highest and most publicized priorities for Harvard—is dead. And the really sad thing is, given the quality of the review, that is probably a good thing.
5) Whither Benedict Gross? The dean of Harvard College isn't much present these days... Would any incoming dean want to keep him on when he's barely there anyway?
6) It is also hard not to conclude that Bill Kirby's tenure as FAS dean has been an unmitigated disaster for the Harvard faculty. During his term, Kirby agreed to allow Mass Hall to solicit FAS alumni for their gifts and redirect those gifts to other parts of the university, a huge loss of power; sold Mass Hall to the central administration in a secret deal; committed to building projects that have created a deficit that's soaring toward nine-figures; and overseen a tragically inept curricular review that even its authors seem disinclined to defend. It's hard to take much positive out of this.
7) Of course, the ultimate responsibility for the Kirby fiasco lies with the man who hired him and constantly worked to subvert his authority: Larry Summers.
I believe that one test of leadership is the fate of the people who work for the person in the seat of power. Does the president of Harvard make the people who work for him look good? Does working for him benefit their reputations and careers?
Could anybody find me one person—honestly, just one—whose public reputation and professional career have benefitted from a close working relationship with Larry Summers? (And no, Lisa New doesn't count.)
Because at Harvard, Summers is making everyone who works for/with him (Lucy McNeil, Bill Kirby, Dick Gross, Steve Pinker, Bob Rubin) look bad.
You certainly have to think that Bill Kirby's dream of becoming a university president is now dead.
It's something the next crop of decanal candidates might want to consider......
Once More Into the Frey
In the Times,
Edward Wyatt keeps the heat on, pointing out that, hey, James Frey's agent and editor also have some 'splainin' to do.
Further down in the article, some of book publishing's top editors explain why they can't afford to hire fact-checkers.
As Wyatt reports: "There are absolutely going to be instances where you see it necessary to hire a fact checker or researcher," said John Sterling, the president and publisher of Henry Holt & Company. "But I don't see in the foreseeable future that any publishing house is going to hire a full-time fact checker to go through every single book published." Whether or not fact checkers are hired, is not the relevant point, Mr. Entrekin said. Many memoirs are already scrutinized by a publisher's legal department in order to make sure that no one is defamed or libeled. As part of that process, "questions inevitably come up," Mr. Entrekin said, adding, "If the author can't answer those questions, it sends up a red flag, and a good editor will know to ask the questions."
This is sort of true. Both of my books were lawyered by their respective publishers (one of whom was John Sterling; American Son was published by Henry Holt). And, especially with Harvard Rules, HarperCollins' lawyer did a good job of pushing me for factual back-up of any potentially libelous material.
But two points.
First, the publishing biz is far more concerned about libel than accuracy, and that's essentially what these lawyers do. James Frey's book, for example, was lawyered...and it's obviously complete nonsense. The reason? Everyone's name was changed (well, invented), so no one had legal standing for a lawsuit. Boom—the lawyer did his job.
And two, I don't believe that a publisher can't afford to pay some smart twenty-something $35,000 a year to check facts. The truth is—and I leave John Sterling out of this, because he's an honorable guy—publishers don't
want to check facts.
Again: Some stories are too good to check...and while the Frey affair might be damaging to Frey and Nan Talese, Doubleday has made millions of dollars off the book.
You can bet that, knowing what they know now, they'd still do it all over again.
A Dean's Dismissal
Harvard faculty of arts and sciences dean Bill Kirby has been fired by Larry Summers.
(Well, according to the Crimson, which broke the story,
Kirby was "forced to resign." Same difference.)
Below are his statement of resignation and Larry Summers' de riguer but patently disingenuous statement of praise. I'll write later about what this all means, in my opinion, but now, it's a beautiful Saturday morning...
Bill Kirby:
Dear Colleagues, I am writing to let you know that after four years of serving as Dean, I have decided to return to the Faculty at the end of the current academic year. I do so in the belief that, together, we have set a strong foundation. First, we have invested heavily in the Faculty: by expanding our ranks in every division and discipline; enhancing time for research and discovery; appointing younger colleagues, who, with our support, will flourish here as scholars and teachers; and committing ourselves to a Faculty as diverse as it is strong. Second, we have invested in the architecture and infrastructure that give form to our ambitions in the sciences, international studies, and the arts: the laboratories, centers, studios, and theaters that are now permanent parts of our collective future. Third, and most important, we have recommitted ourselves to our students: by processes of curricular review and renewal; increased financial aid for undergraduate and graduate students alike; and expanded educational opportunities for them across Harvard and around the world. For our continued growth in all these domains we have developed a strong, long-term, financial plan. The events of the past year have posed serious challenges. Yet we have continued to focus on the essential business before us. As we look to the future, it will be important for the President and the Dean to work closely together, in collaboration with the Faculty, toward our common objectives. I feel confident that my successor, President Summers, and the Faculty as a whole will have a solid basis on which to build. Meanwhile, there is work to be done, and we have a full agenda before us this spring. For myself, the allure and the increasingly dynamic nature of my field of study -- modern and contemporary China -- have made my decision a timely and compelling one. I look forward to working with colleagues and students as we extend our study of China's past, present, and future role in the world. No one can serve in this office without being grateful for the privilege of working with this stellar faculty, no small number of whom I have had the honor to recruit; of being supported by the dedicated staff that serves us all in FAS; of meeting and befriending our wonderful alumni; and -- above all -- serving the students for whom, at the end of the day, this University exists. Thank you. Sincerely yours, William C. KirbyLarry Summers:
Dear Members of the Harvard Community, As he announced earlier today, Bill Kirby has decided to step down as Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and return to the faculty at the end of the 2005-06 academic year. Starting this summer, he will take the lead in guiding Harvard's growing array of initiatives focused on China, his longtime field of scholarly expertise, as director of the Fairbank Center for East Asian Research. I want to express my gratitude, personally and on behalf of the Harvard community, for Bill's imaginative and dedicated leadership of the FAS these past several years. As Dean, Bill has guided the Faculty with remarkable foresight, openness to change, and deep devotion to the University's highest values and purposes, during what I believe will prove to have been a transformative period in the life of the FAS. * He has shown a deep commitment to assuring the best possible experience for students at Harvard College - both by launching and leading the first comprehensive review of Harvard's undergraduate curriculum in a generation, and by pursuing innovative ways to enhance residential and extracurricular life. * He has stimulated and steered the ambitious growth of the FAS faculty - now more than 700 strong - through intensive recruitment efforts and with special attention to charting new scholarly directions, improving our faculty-student ratio, and bettering the tenure prospects of outstanding junior faculty members. * He has worked creatively with colleagues to expand opportunities for study abroad and to spur closer student-faculty engagement -- including a dramatic rise in freshman seminars and the advent of faculty-led junior seminars in several of the largest concentrations. * He has pursued essential enhancements in financial aid for both undergraduate and graduate students, to keep Harvard's doors open to outstanding and diverse students from across the economic spectrum. * He has initiated critical large-scale investments in the Faculty's facilities, in the sciences and beyond, that will augment Harvard's academic capacities for decades to come. * He has undertaken to strengthen the administrative structure of the FAS, both to involve more faculty members in planning and priority-setting and to ensure responsiveness to student concerns. To these and other initiatives -- and through what has been a not-uncomplicated time in the life of the University -- he has brought a consistent commitment to the best interests of the FAS and its faculty, students, and staff, and to fruitful collaboration with Harvard's other faculties and schools. With Bill, I look forward to a productive spring semester for the FAS, which will be an important one for the curricular review and in other key areas. I look forward, as well, to supporting Bill's leadership in guiding Harvard's efforts to deepen and widen our scholarship and teaching about China in the years ahead. We are fortunate to have someone of his experience, collaborative outlook, and deep knowledge of China to shape our thinking about creative new ways to engage with the most populous nation on earth, at the start of a century whose defining developments seem sure to include China's rising influence around the globe. Few areas of academic interest hold greater promise for the University in the decades ahead, and Bill is exceptionally well positioned to help Harvard move forward. The search for Bill's successor as Dean will begin promptly. After consultation within the faculty, I plan to invite a broad-based faculty advisory group to work with me on the search, in line with customary Harvard practice. As the search proceeds, I also intend to consult more widely with members of the faculty, including the FAS Faculty Council and the department chairs, and to seek the perspectives and counsel of students, staff, and alumni. Meanwhile, members of the Harvard community are strongly encouraged to offer their advice and nominations, in confidence, by writing to me in Massachusetts Hall or by e-mail, starting January 30, to fasdeansearch@harvard.edu. For now, I hope you will join me in thanking Bill Kirby for his farsighted and devoted service to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and to the University as a whole, and in helping to ensure both a productive final semester of his deanship and a smooth transition in the time ahead. Sincerely, Lawrence H. SummersOh, all right, I have two quick things to say. One, the curricular review is now DOA. And two...the search for a new dean is going to be very interesting.
Who would take the job now?
Doubleday to Frey: See Ya!
Awed by the power of Oprah, Doubleday abandoned its previous go-suck-an-egg defense of James Frey and issued this statement:
News from Doubleday & Anchor Books The controversy over James Frey’s A MILLION LITTLE PIECES has caused serious concern at Doubleday and Anchor Books. Recent interpretations of our previous statement notwithstanding, it is not the policy or stance of this company that it doesn’t matter whether a book sold as nonfiction is true. A nonfiction book should adhere to the facts as the author knows them. It is, however, Doubleday and Anchor’s policy to stand with our authors when accusations are initially leveled against their work, and we continue to believe this is right and proper. A publisher’s relationship with an author is based to an extent on trust. Mr. Frey’s repeated representations of the book’s accuracy, throughout publication and promotion, assured us that everything in it was true to his recollections. When the Smoking Gun report appeared, our first response, given that we were still learning the facts of the matter, was to support our author. Since then, we have questioned him about the allegations and have sadly come to the realization that a number of facts have been altered and incidents embellished. We bear a responsibility for what we publish, and apologize to the reading public for any unintentional confusion surrounding the publication of A MILLION LITTLE PIECES. We are immediately taking the following actions: • We are issuing a publisher’s note to be included in all future printings of the book. • James Frey is writing an author’s note that will appear in all future printings of the book. • The jacket for all future editions will carry the line “With new notes from the publisher and from the author.” • Although demand for the book remains high, we are not currently reprinting or fulfilling orders until we make the above changes. • The publisher’s note and author’s note will be posted prominently on the randomhouse.com website. • The publisher’s note and author’s note will promptly be sent to booksellers for inclusion in previously shipped copies of the book. • An advertisement concerning these developments will appear in national and trade publications in the next few days. David Drake VP and Director of Publicity Doubleday Books xxxx@randomhouse.com 212/782-XXXX Russell Perreault VP and Director of Publicity Anchor Books xxxx@randomhouse.com 212-572-XXXXWhat's missing from this? Any acknowledgement that the folks at Doubleday, especially Nan Talese, bear any responsibility for the fraud of this book. Was there no one at this company who read the manuscript—originally shopped as a novel—and said, hey, guys, wait a minute here....? Did they really care if Frey had cooked a few details in the book? I suspect they didn't. As the old saying goes, some stories are too good to check.
Yesterday on Oprah's show, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen made a good suggestion. Publishers operate on the cheap even though they're now part of huge multinational corporations, he said. Hire a friggin' fact-checker.
Of course they should; it's absurd that publishers expect writers to pay for their own fact-checking. Frankly, they can afford it far more than we can, and many writers, faced with paying $5,000 or so for a decent fact-check of their book, will simply blow it off. Publishers know this and don't much care. As long as they won't get sued over a mistake, they don't care much about its existence.
Oh, and as long as Oprah doesn't destroy them on national TV for it.
The Question Oprah Didn't Ask
Well, you can stick a fork in James Frey--he's done. Frey's made a lot of money from A Million Little Pieces, but after the devastating interview that just took place, would anyone trade places with him? He's living proof of how a man could gain his fortune and lose his soul.
As the show went on, Frey said less and less, but just sat on Oprah's couch looking silently miserable.
The irony is, he still isn't telling the truth. Here's what he should have said:
"You know, Oprah, I wrote this book as a novel, but nobody wanted to buy it in that form. Then Nan Talese, an editor at Doubleday, the woman sitting on the couch next to me, suggested that it be published as a memoir, because memoirs sell more copies than novels do, and that's how she bought it. Nan knew that I had presented it as fiction, and so when the change to memoir didn't seem to bother her, I went along with it. Hey, she's the expert, right? I was just happy to sell the book and make some money. I should have known better, but my ambition and greed got the better of me, and I'll regret that for the rest of my life."
But Frey, who turns out to be not such a tough guy after all, didn't have the cojones to tell that truth. Instead he sat there--completely alone, though there were four other people on the couch--while everyone else excoriated him. It made me wish that, for once, for real, James Frey would fight back.
Because some of the blame should go to Nan Talese. She took a manuscript that was presented to her as fiction (though she has since denied this, it appears to be one case where Frey really is telling the truth) and peddled it to the world as a memoir.
On Oprah, she claimed otherwise. "If [I] had
any inkling of this..." she said breathily.
Well, receiving a manuscript labeled "novel" is usually a pretty good sign that something isn't true. And Oprah should have put her on the spot and said: "Nan, you claim that you had no inkling that this wasn't true. Yet James has repeatedly said that he first tried to sell you the book as a novel. Is he lying about that, or are you lying now?"
Talese also claimed that she too had a root canal without Novocaine.
Oh, bullshit.
Can you people just stop lying? Please?
Sometimes, People are Funny
So I was just checking out A Million Little Pieces on Amazon to see how it's selling—#5 today, and I'm sure it'll go higher after Oprah, but man, Frey's earning his money these days—and I saw this review:
12 is a pretty good average, January 25, 2006
I have not actually read this book but James Frey says that only 12 pages of his book are untrue and I think that's a pretty good average. I think it's a great and compelling book and recommend it highly. Only 12 words of this review are untrue. Can you guess which ones they are?Genius.
Oprah Turns on Frey
Holy cow, does she ever.
I'm going to watch the show myself later, but for now, here's
Gawker's take—so embarrassing to Frey, it's almost painful to watch.
I can't wait to watch it....
The Last Gasp of a Dying Network
CNN has become so pathetic—the other day I heard Lou Dobbs doing a radio ad for Geico—it's almost not worth paying attention to the once-serious news network.
Here's the network's big news today: To replace aging conservative windbag Robert Novak,
CNN has just signed up aging conservative, perhaps even-greater windbag William Bennett.
Snooore.....
Paging Jonathan Klein: William Bennett hasn't been relevant
in twenty years....
Lani Guinier to Columbia?
The
New York Observer reports that Columbia Law School is trying to woo Lani Guinier away from Harvard....
Ms. Guinier is a fan of Harvard dean Elena Kagan, but not Harvard president Larry Summers, and the offer to start a civil-rights law center sounds like it tempts her.
"I am interested," she says....
Speaking of Maureen Dowd...
...whom I refuse to call
MoDo, the way insider journalists always do...
In yesterday's NY Post, Liz Smith had a hilariously bitchy item about Dowd. Rather than navigate the Post's horrific website—which, along with the Boston Globe's and Major League Baseball's, is one of the worst on the web—I'm just going to reprint it.
Maureen was spotted at Seattle locales recently with the Starbucks honcho Howard Schultz. She was in town for a noon gig at Starbucks headquarters pitching her bestseller, "Are Men Necessary?" Warmly introduced by Howard himself, Maureen went on to charm the caffeine-loaded crowd with her banter.She told them she'd had a t-shirt custom-made for the coffee man. It bore the question on the front "Is Howard Necessary?" and on the back it read, "Oh, yes!"[RB: Oh, no.]
The coffee-ist and columnist met at a dinner soiree in the Seattle home of Michael Kinsley, ex-Slate editor, and Patty Stonesifer, CEO of the Gates Foundation. That Maureen travels around in high cotton while pretending to be just another ink-stained wretch.Ouch!
I don't know why Liz Smith dislikes Dowd, but she clearly does, because Liz Smith is never that pointed. But I couldn't agree more. There's just something about Maureen "Oh, yes!" Dowd that is so clearly fake—including, I have a feeling, some of her facial structure. And it's true: She's the first to haul in her working class roots (she's Irish, Dad was a cop) when it's convenient. But she doesn't seem to have much interest in the
little people these days....
"To Be Fair, Which Is Not My Intention...."
When he's nasty, Alex Beam is very, very good. Check out his hilarious column on
Bernard-Henri Levy in the
Boston Globe.
Why is it that the New York Times, for all its clout and access and supposed sophistication, lacks a single writer of this wit? And don't even mention Maureen Dowd; she hasn't been funny since she stopped reporting.
(Which is also another way of asking why the NYT is so damn humorless. Which is another way of asking if anyone reads that egregiously bad "Funny Pages" section in the New York Times Magazine. But I meander.)
James Frey, on the Hot Seat?
Or the love seat?
James Frey will be on
Oprah today. Should be interesting.
James Frey: It's Getting Ugly
In response to yesterday's NYT article alleging that James Frey's portrayal of rehab at the Hazelten Clinic was a complete crock,
Random House has offered the Times two men who say they can corroborate Frey's work.
To which one can only say: If this is the best they can do, the Times really ought to shift
A Million Little Pieces over to the fiction side of the bestseller list.
Consider the two sources. One, as the Times puts it, is Alan J. Green, "a state judge in Louisiana who in June was convicted of mail fraud." Green is facing up to 20 years in prison.
The second is "a man named Richard, who said he was a Houston lawyer and accountant but who would not disclose his last name."
Hmmmmmm. Did anyone check where
Jayson Blair was during this phone call?
What do the men say? That Frey's descriptions were "pretty much" accurate.
On the other hand, neither one recalls any fighting, vomiting of blood, or gambling among patients during lectures—the very details that elevate Frey's story above a run-of-the-mill rehab diary. In fact, both men strongly suggest that such incidents never happened.
And remember—these are people who are supposed to be
supporting Frey.
Frey issued a statement that said: "It appears that my fellow patients in treatment have essentially corroborated my account, and any differences are incidental."
Argh.
No, James, it doesn't appear that way at all. The differences are not incidental; they are fundamental.
I think Mr. Frey's addiction to lying is far more serious than his alleged addictions to drugs and alcohol ever were. It's certainly lasted longer.
Mon Dieu! The French Chow Down.
Not so long ago,
French women didn't get fat.
Well, now they do. And so do French men. And French kids.
Because according to the Times,
France has a fat problem. Adult obesity is rising at a six percent annual rate, and the increase in the annual obesity rate among children is a bleak 17 percent. Soon, the French will be as fat as Americans—and that's fat!
Since the French are so snotty about all this stuff, let us all pause for a moment of schadenfreude. Made only more enjoyable by the fact that we're using a German word to make fun of the French.
It's fascinating to see how demographic changes in the French population are forcing that country to reevaluate its traditional, change-resistant, oft-infuriating (to outsiders) culture...or to consider the ways in which that culture is honored more in the breach. Did you know, for example, that McDonalds makes more money in France than in any other European country? That must be a national scandal there....or at least enough to make half the populace go on strike.
And while a few years back, Laetitia Costa was named the new "Marianne," or symbol of the French republic—a wise choice, I thought at the time—today fat women are showing up in fashion shows.
Of course, all this does have a serious side. While we can all enjoy a little chuckle at France's comeuppance, there are real health issues associated with obesity, and that's no fun for anyone in any language.
Below, a fat French woman.
A fat American:
And Laetitia Costa:
Reasons to Watch the Olympics
I receive a daily e-mail from a company called Thrillist, which is supposed to provide suggestions of things for men to do in Manhattan—bars, new restaurants, places to work out, etc. It's occasionally useful, although it has a Maxim-like quality to it.
Today's Thrillist contained an interview with former Olympic skiier Johnny Mosely which I found amusing. I've always wanted to be the television producer for the Olympics, even though I have absolutely no relevant experience, because I never feel like I'm really getting a good explanation of what's going on there. NBC takes it so seriously! It's as if we're eavesdropping on church.
Mosely's q-and-a, some of which I've excerpted below, provides a lighter take. Okay, borderline juvenile. But...it does sound true.
So, what are we supposed to watch this Olympics?Well, I'll be watching the freestyle moguls, and the downhill's going to be interesting with Bode and Daron [Rahlves]. With Shaun White, the halfpipe's going to be sick too.
Right. Anyway, what event has the most potential for spectacular crashes?The downhill, no doubt. You're guaranteed to see a good NASCAR-style wreck. Although border cross can be more interesting -- you've got four snowboarders competing at once, and so guys take each other out.
Is there any particular Olympic sport that produces more sluts?Loose chicks? I'd definitely say the skiing/snowboarding crew are the ones to just shack up with. They're more reckless. For the long-term, probably biathlon, or cross country. There's a reverse correlation between the duration of the event and the sluttiness of the girl.
Which national team has the reputation for being the biggest dicks?The French. Hands down. It's weird, but of all the countries, they speak the least English -- or at least they pretend they can't.
If you got in a drunken brawl with the French, which national team would you want backing you up?The Russians. The pre-Putin generation guys really like fighting. They grew up when you could bribe your way out of anything, so they have no conception of law and order.
Russians are scary....
RB: If you enjoy such stuff, you can find Thrillist
here.
In Praise of Irony
Larry Summers is headed to the world economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, where the opening-night, kickoff panel is entitled, "Today's Sinners and the Seven Deadly Sins."
According to
an AP report, "'Davos is an opportunity to discuss issues and solutions that really matter to the global community,' says James Turley, chairman and chief executive of Ernst & Young. And the avarice and woes of the rich and famous are a hot topic...."
Hmmmm. Perhaps someone might raise a question about trying to profit off insider knowledge of a transitional, say, Russian economy while on contract to the United States government to give advice to that economy?
I suspect that's a case study that really mattered to the global community....
A Thought on Harvard and Shleifer
Not so long ago, I had a conversation with an esteemed member of the Harvard faculty about the mood among the professoriat. I mused that the faculty seemed inert, ignorant of and uncaring about the Andrei Shleifer scandal.
The professor corrected me, saying that I was wrong and that the faculty cared very much—it just wasn't sure what to do. After all, the faculty had gone public last spring in the no-confidence vote, and look what had happened? Nothing. In fact, public opinion was divided between supporting the faculty and trashing them as irresponsible, spoiled, left-wing nutjobs. So where was the good in going public?
But it seems to me that, from a strategic point of view, it makes far more sense to go public on the Shleifer matter...simply because there is absolutely no good argument for keeping him on the faculty. How would Larry Summers argue that there is virtue in retaining a criminal who stole taxpayer money and cost the university $35 million?
(I mean, Summers might try...in which case, you just sit back and let him machine-gun himself in the foot.)
This is not a public relations war that any Shleifer defender could possibly win; there are no merits from which to argue his position. How would it look for the president of Harvard to be compelled to explain his inaction on the matter? (Much less his repeated interventions on Shleifer's behalf.) The second a New York Times reporter called Mass Hall for comment, Shleifer's fate would be sealed.
So here's a suggestion: Forget about the internal mechanisms for dealing with such a problem. They've all been subverted, corrupted, and negated. Instead, do that most American of things—circulate a petition.
It could read something like this:
"As a member of the Harvard community, I believe that Harvard University should stand for truth, excellence, and honesty. I also believe that Harvard should strive to guide its students in moral behavior. Professor Andrei Shleifer, who has long enjoyed the active support of President Lawrence Summers, has admitted that he conspired to defraud the United States government. As a result, Harvard has been forced to pay fines and legal fees totalling over $30 million—money that could have been used to provide scholarships for thousands of students.
"Professor Shleifer's actions damage the reputation of Harvard University, violate the high standards of integrity we expect from a member of the Harvard faculty. The ongoing inaction on the part of the Harvard administration sends the message to our undergraduate students that one can break the laws of the United States yet still remain a member of the Harvard faculty in good standing.
"Therefore, I call upon University president Lawrence Summers to cease his actions on behalf of Professor Andrei Shleifer, and Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences William Kirby to take immediate action regarding Professor Shleifer's employment at Harvard."
E-mail the thing around, and then, when you get a few hundred signatures, shoot it over to Marcella Bombardieri at the Boston Globe and Patrick Healy at the New York Times.
The Harvard faculty is only inert if it chooses to be....and I think it has more power than it realizes. But that power is collective...and this is not a group that frequently or readily acts in concert. Now would be a good time to do just that.
David Warsh on Andrei Shleifer
On his blog, economicprincipals.com,
David Warsh weighs in on David McClintick's article, "How Harvard Lost Russia."
Like me, Warsh finds McClintick's story an impressive piece of reporting. Unlike me, he thinks it will have a significant impact around the 02138 zip code.
Here is one of Warsh's conclusions: "When Summers returns to Cambridge from Davos, it will be to a university more determined than ever to understand the history of its failed Russia project. McClintick's article will circulate hand to hand. The frustration among the faculty that McClintick details will only grow. Some fellow economist may yet come forward to defend Shleifer publicly (instead of grousing anonymously that he has been treated unfairly), but that hasn't happened yet."
As much as I'd like to agree with Warsh, this is wishful thinking. In the past five years, the Harvard faculty has shown a remarkable talent to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that what's happening on campus—the moral emasculation of their university—isn't really happening at all. By the time they lift their heads into the air, the change will have been effected, and they can pretend that they never had a choice.
After all, how many faculty members have had the guts to say something publicly about the fact that Andre Shleifer—whose illegal behavior has cost the university between $30 and $40 million—is still a member of the Harvard faculty in good standing?
A grand total of two: Harry Lewis and Richard Thomas.
Meanwhile, FAS dean Bill Kirby refuses to take action on the Shleifer matter and sells Mass Hall to the president because, the Crimson says, he had "little choice."
Sometimes, I can understand why Larry Summers doesn't respect the professors who work for him.
The President Goes Brokeback
Want to hear George W. Bush's thoughts on Brokeback Mountain? Well, a student at Kansas State University wanted to know if the president had seen it. "You should check it out—you'd really like it," he says.
Bush's answer—which is, truth be told, sort of charming—is
here.
A Million Imploding Little Pieces
James Frey's defenders, such as, um, Oprah, have said that it doesn't matter if he fudged a few things in his book, because the "essential message" of healing still "resonates."
Well, what if the healing part of
A Million Little Pieces is all made-up, too?
That's what folks at the Hazelden Clinic, where Frey ostensibly stayed, are saying...Frey's description of the treatment he received there
strikes them as wildly implausible, and very likely fictional.
Well...yes. I have a feeling that if anyone wanted to try to check the rest of Frey's book, it would all collapse in a heap of pathetic, greedy little lies.
Moreover, it seems that you can't even defend Frey's handiwork on the grounds that it inspires people to get treatment, because the Hazelden folks say it could well have the opposite effect.
"Mic Hunter, a psychologist who worked for four years at Hazelden-related treatment centers in Minnesota, said Mr. Frey's book made him angry. 'It's hard enough for people to get accurate information about treatment because of all the confidentiality rules,' he said. 'So many people have negative feelings about treatment to begin with. Why would anybody want to send anyone to a treatment program where they would be treated like this?'"
The most interesting part: Folks from Hazelden told Oprah's producers this
before she announced that she was choosing the book for her book club....
Perhaps Oprah would like to explain more about why that message of healing still resonates with her.....
If You Believe in Karma
...then check out this brutal, karma-minded story on David Patrick Columbia's "
New York Social Diary." It's about two wealthy New York couples and what happens when they spend too much time together, and it feels like an O. Henry story...
Is it real? Or is it cautionary? Or both?
Climbing Brokeback Mountain
Well, I finally saw
Brokeback Mountain over the weekend, and I'm happy to report that a) it's really quite a good movie, and b) it did not make me question my own sexuality.
(Before everyone gets mad, I'm just kidding!)
I was actually more worried that I'd find it hard to take the movie seriously, as it's become such an object of cultural discussion that it's hovering on the verge of self-parody.
(Michael Musto, the very bitchy—and I mean that in the nicest way—and very gay columnist for the Village Voice went to the Golden Globes parties and asked the actors
what they thought of "Bareback Mountain." He cornered Phillip Seymour Hoffman and asked him who was sexier, the guys in "Bareback Mountain" or Truman Capote. Hoffman didn't quite know what to say. He then asked Hoffman who was sexier, Capote or the
Memoirs of a Geisha crew. "I have no idea," Hoffman said, "looking horrified." Pretty funny.)
Anyway, I found myself drawn into the movie, which is a beautifully-told story of a doomed love affair. The essential decency of both men involved, and the tragedy of the situation in which they find themselves, is heartbreaking, and I really do think that the film could be a watershed in the long, slow march toward civil rights for gays. It was a stroke of genius on Annie Proulx's part to embed a gay narrative within the most classically macho American myth, the cowboy. No one can call Jack Twist or Ennis Del Mar sissies.
I did have a couple of thoughts about the film. One is to question whether these characters are actually gay, or whether their relationship is a one-off, a unique result of their particular backgrounds, emotional needs, and the bonding experience of a summer on Brokeback Mountain. My answer: Jack yes, Ennis, I'm not so sure. Ennis, to my mind, is so emotionally limited that it would make a certain cultural sense that the person he bonds most closely with would be another man. Ennis just doesn't have the emotional self-knowledge to have many deep relationships, and you wonder if, if Jack hadn't happened along, he'd have had a loving relationship with anyone, male or female.
I also wonder why everyone is talking about Heath Ledger's performance at the expense of Jake Gyllenhall. (Also: Why is Gyllenhall pronounced with a soft "G"? But I digress.)
It seemed to me that Gyllenhall's was the braver of the two performances. Ledger gets to be all smoldering and conflicted; I suspect that, for professional actors, those are not different traits to manifest. (Grunt a lot, surround yourself with beer bottles, maintain a stony facial expression....)
Gyllenhall, on the other hand, knows what he wants and gives voice to his desires. He initiates the sex between the two men, and, in a choice that is surely not accidental, is the, um, recipient of it. His desires are more transparent...which is why, I think, his performance is so good. If he'd gone too far, Gyllenhall could have been incredible, laughable. He strikes a remarkable balance. I keep thinking of the scene in which he tries to buy a beer for a fellow rodeo performer, and the man, suspecting that something is up, rudely turns him down. Was Jack really hitting on the guy? Or just reaching out to him in a friendly, non-macho way which was, by itself, enough to run afoul of the cowboy code? It could have been either, and Gyllenhall plays the scene so subtly, he doesn't tip his hand...which, I imagine, is precisely what you would do if you were a gay man forced to live in the closet.
Finally, a friend and I had a discussion about how graphic was the sex that's shown in the film. She was surprised by how much was actually shown; I thought that, if director Ang Lee had shown any less, he'd have been pilloried for copping out.
In some ways, I wonder if the film didn't err on the conservative side. What would have been more shocking than what was shown, in my opinion, would have been to show one of the characters fellating the other. (My friend insisted that these two men would never do that; I disagreed.)
But I wonder if audiences really could have handled the sight of two men in love going down on each other. There's something about rough anal sex that's not so shocking; we've seen it to one degree or another in Deliverance, Oz, and other film scenarios of violent sex. It conforms to our expectations of the way men behave when giving in to a taboo desire—contradicting the implications of the sexual act by infusing it with violence.
But tender gay sex...I have a feeling that would have made people much more uncomfortable than the rough-and-tumble coupling that occurs between Jack and Ennis.
Regardless of all this, Brokeback Mountain is really a powerful and moving film, a serious work of art. I'm glad I finally saw it.
FAS Sells Out
The
Faculty of Arts and Sciences is selling Mass Hall to the university's central administration, which plans to end its partial-use as a dormitory and expand the presidential bureaucracy.
The symbolism here is pretty powerful, largely because it's so dead-on: FAS, in desperate need of cash, is giving up its ownership of the university's center; the Summers bureaucracy is growing larger and more powerful; the students are getting screwed as a result.
Here's what I think is especially curious: The Crimson's Zachary Seward writes, '''two sources said that Dean of the Faculty
William C. Kirby was given little choice in approving the sale or the sale price....”
That sentence begs parsing. Follow up please, Mr. Seward. Who initiated the deal? Who told Kirby that he had little choice? And why? And what would have been the outcome if (the horror! the horror!) he'd actually stood his ground.
Surely Kirby could have said no if he wanted to, or had the guts to. What's the worst that could happen—he'd be fired? That would be the easiest departure to spin since
Elliot Richardson resigned from the Nixon Administration.
The very idea that the once-powerful dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard "was given little choice" tells you all you need to know about the shift of power at the world's most powerful university.
Ted Kennedy
Did
Ted Kennedy father a child out of wedlock back in 1983? That's what the National Enquirer reports this week. According to
the Enquirer's story, the mother is a Cape Cod woman named Caroline Bilodeau, and the son,
Christopher, is now of legal age and wants his family status acknowledged. Teddy was still married to his wife Joan at the time, but filed for divorce several months later.
Teddy is denying the story—his spokeswoman, Melissa Wagoner, called it "irresponsible fiction"—but the Enquirer stands by it.
Who to believe? Well, it's hard to imagine that if Teddy really were the boy's father, he'd outright deny it; that'd be pretty low. On the other hand, the Enquirer doesn't usually make claims this dramatic unless it's really got them nailed down. (Of course, Teddy's not likely to sue, as the discovery process would be a gauntlet for him.)
Interestingly, the Boston Herald has run with the story—in
its gossip column—while the Boston Globe, as far as I can tell, hasn't printed a word about it. Admirable restraint, or protecting the Kennedys? What a small town Boston really is. If Hillary Clinton had allegedly had a love child (or even Chuck Schumer), it'd be on the front page of both tabloids... I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing, but the differences between the cities are dramatic.
George Clooney: Unadulterated Idiot?
I admire George Clooney, who's had an interesting career and seems determined to make some
intelligent movies. Good for him. But I was surprised by his crude insult of corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff the other night at the Golden Globe awards.
“Who would name their kid Jack with the last words ‘off’ at the end of your last name?" Clooney said. "No wonder that guy is screwed up."
There's lots of good reasons to slam Abramoff, but making fun of his name is childish, and the fact that the room responded with laughter shows how easily supposedly mature adults can revert to schoolyard behavior, especially when it comes from someone as "cool" as George Clooney.
I guess Jack Abramoff's father, Frank, agrees with me;
he tells the Palm Springs Desert News that Clooney is an "idiot" and his words were "pure, unadulterated stupidity."
Jack Abramoff was named after his grandfather, Frank says. “We’ve gone through quite a bit in our family. But the political end of it and the media end of it and all the other areas are one thing. When you see something like that on a show for 500 million people, it was not only a slap in my son’s face but in my father’s.”
As someone who used to be named "Blow," I can't help but empathize, and I know exactly what Frank Abramoff means. A few years back, when I was working at George, I went on Fox News to do some commentary about the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I was greeted, on air, by anchor Shepherd Smith, who said something like, "Our next guest is George magazine editor Richard Blow, and what an appropriate name that is for a discussion of Monica Lewinsky."
It was humiliating and infuriating at the same time—and unfortunately not something you can really respond to on national TV. ("Fuck you, Shep," would have been satisfying, but probably not helpful.) I was later told that Smith was dressed down by Fox News head Roger Ailes for the comment, but that didn't help me much; the joke had been broadcast to millions, the rebuke was virtually unknown.
All of which, I suppose, is a way of saying that even rogues like Jack Abramoff, when they are faulted, should be faulted on civilized terms, not by making vulgar jokes about their names and masturbation. I know such an appeal for manners and restraint is wildly improbable given the tenor of our popular culture, but still...Clooney is generally an elegant man, and you'd think that he'd be on board with the idea.
George's father, Nick Clooney, a former
candidate for Congress, certainly seems to agree. “I understand what it is like to have one's son criticized in a very public way,” Clooney told the Desert News. “It's very painful and it's very difficult."
George Clooney's rep declined, of course, to comment on Frank Abramoff's words. I think that's cowardly; you use a podium seen by hundreds of millions to mock a man, and then you decline comment later.
Jack Abramoff is far from the world's most ethical man...and yet, somehow, George Clooney owes him an apology.
What If a Man Died on a Train...
...and nobody cared?
In Michael Mann's fantastic film, "
Collateral," Tom Cruise plays an assassin at work in Los Angeles, a city he doesn't much like. Everyone's too isolated here, he tells Jamie Foxx, the cabdriver he is forcing to do his bidding, and relates the story of a man who died on the LA subway and goes undiscovered for days. The unspoken suggestion: In a city where human life is so little valued, what does it really matter if he kills a few people?
Well, yesterday it happened in New York: A
man died on the Q train on his way home from work, and his death went unnoticed for six hours.
Just for the record, let us note that Eugene M. Reilly of Brooklyn was a USPS mail handler and had been for 35 years. He had a wife and three kids, two sons and a daughter. He worked at the Morgan mail processing center, which is on 9th Avenue between 28th and 30th streets, a massive but strangely lonely building; I know it because I sometimes drive by it in taxis late at night, headed back uptown on the West Side Highway. Mr. Reilly was also an Army vet who spent two years in Vietnam as an M.P. According to his neighbor, Yosef Y. Zaklikowsk, "He kept his property very clean." He was overweight and had had heart surgery a decade ago, so foul play is not suspected.
Somewhere within the circle of those few, scant details lies the story of a man, whose death may have gone unnoticed but whose life, I hope, will not go unremembered.
The Problem with Movies
Daniel Gross over at Slate writes about the
diminishing time between movie theatrical and DVD releases. Probably not so good for Hollywood, he concludes, but great for consumers.
I've written about this phenomenon before for two reasons: One, I'm fascinated by what is clearly an enormous shifting paradigm, the end of the movie theater era. (The social and economic consequences are going to be really interesting.)
And two, I can't wait. Every time I go to the theaters these days, I hate myself for doing so—kind of like the way I feel on those rare occasions when I eat fast food.
Among some recent movie theater experiences I've had are these:
1) A guy who sat in a seat behind me and repeatedly coughed without putting his hand over his mouth, which had the effect of a gentle but intermittent disease-carrying breeze on my hair, until eventually I turned around and asked him to stop.
2) An older couple who sat down behind me and proceeded to pull out a series of Tupperware containers containing their plentiful, and odiferous, dinner.
3) Moviegoers who laughed and cheered at the most hideously violent scenes in
Hostel, a not-particularly-good film about the dangers of globalization and hormones, especially when combined.
There's an interesting dynamic here: The more people who care about manners stop going to the movies, the more the only people left who do go are the ill-mannered, which means that people who do care will be even less likely to go...and so on and so on. In this way, the movie theater is a reflection of our national public culture generally. Forgive me for sounding like George Will, but manners and civility are beating an increasingly hasty retreat into pockets of isolation...it's a cultural flight, not unlike the post-World War II exodus to the suburbs. The beneficiaries are Netflix and the makers of plasma TV sets, multimedia stands, couches, and gourmet foods. But I suspect that we're all losing something.....
I'm a Bad Person for Saying This...
...but you know who I really wish the tabloids would get a picture of?
The face transplant woman.
I know: crummy me. But I'm fascinated by the whole thing—the medical technique, which I still haven't seen well-explained; the ethical issues involved; the murky circumstances of the woman's facial damage (she took too many sleeping pills and her dog, trying to wake her up, ate her face?).
Apparently she took a walk in Lyon the other day. Where are our best paparrazzi when we need them? Come on, guys. Do we really need yet another photo of Lindsay Lohan?
A Congressman Goes to Brazil
Massachusetts congressman Michael E. Capuano is taking heat for accepting an all-expense paid trip to Brazil, paid for by a nonprofit business organization, that cost $19, 403.
According to the Boston Globe, the trip was paid for by a group called the
Congressional Economic Leadership Institute, which is funded by big business.
(But don't expect to find that out on its website; if you click on the link that says "Funding," you get this — "The requested URL /mission.htm. was not found on this server."—which is the web equivalent of a middle finger.)
Capuano, a Democrat*, was accompanied by lobbyists on every stage of the trip, from Sao Paulo to Brasilia to Rio.
Asked if that was a problem, David M. Klaus, executive director of the Congressional Economic Leadership Institute, answered, "'We have an unofficial rule that you leave your lobbying hat at the door."
Don't you just love it when people say things that are so blatantly false, you wonder if they're not kind of giggling when they say it?
Capuano was also accompanied by his wife, which was probably a good thing for his marriage—trust me, I've been to
Brazil—but, ethically speaking, seems a bit problematic.
When asked about the substantial price of the trip—essentially a $20, 000 bribe—Capuano told Globe reporter Michael Kanish, ''My reaction was the same as yours: What the heck cost so much?"
Capuano added that he was surprised that his business-class airline seats were so expensive. ''I had no clue," he said. ''I didn't pay for it."
Well...yes. That's the point.
________________________________________________________________
* Thanks to those who pointed out that Capuano is a Democrat and not a Republican, as I had originally posted.
Is It Real? Or Is It Jim Frey?*
Jim Frey's website, which was password-protected as of yesterday, now sports this disclaimer (Frey is full of disclaimers these days):
Hello to the Friends and Supporters of James Frey -Unfortunately the BigJimIndustries site is down right now because of the enormous amount of traffic it was getting. There were over 300,000 unique visitors in the past week, his bandwidth was up around 3200kb/s, and most importantly it was affecting access to other clients who share the same network connection as BigJimIndustries.com. As you probably saw in the first few days during the heat of the controversy the site was still up, so it is not down now b/c of the criticism or detractors. We basically forced James to take the site down, and for that we apologize to his friends and fans. As the controversy and resulting traffic dies down, I'm sure the site will go back up.Thank you for your understanding and patience.Is it true? The "essential truth"? "Some form of journalistic truth"? Who the heck knows? I guess that's what happens when you lie like a cheap rug.
(Although the fact that the "we" who "basically forced James to take the site down" go unidentified does make one wonder....)
Hey, folks, come on over to Shots in the Dark...I won't lie to you: I have
never been arrested.
___________________________________________________________________
P.S. For you young folks out there, the title of this blog entry is a play on an old ad for Memorex cassette tape. (Don't you just love that company name? Memorex!)
Cassette tape was...oh, never mind.
James Frey: Just Can't Get Enough
Tom Scocca, in the New York Observer,
writes brilliantly on James Frey.
If you really, really like and support James Frey, you won't read it, because you are making your decision based on emotion rather than reason. Which is your prerogative.
If you think that what he did is appalling, as I do, then you should read this piece, just...well, because you'll feel even more that way.
Knowing as we now do that James Frey never went to jail for hitting a cop with his car, here's my favorite part of Scocca's story:
...the copyright page of My Friend Leonard
informs readers: “Some names and identifying characteristics have been changed. Some sequences and details of events have been changed.” Fine. Then comes the opening sentence: “On my first day in jail, a three hundred pound man named Porterhouse hit me in the back of the head with a metal tray.” In other words: “On my first day in jail*, a three hundred pound man** named Porterhouse*** hit me in the back of the head**** with a metal tray*****.” *The author never went to jail. **Weight is an estimate; also the author, not being in jail, never met such a person. ***Not his real name; also the author never met such a person. ****Because the author’s head was not present in jail, such a blow did not actually land. ***** The composition of the tray is a guess, because the author did not actually get hit by it, because the author was never in jail.
Frigging brilliant.
Teddy Dumps the Owl
Ted Kennedy, chastised by Republicans for being a member of an all-male club, has announced
his intention to resign from the Owl, a Harvard final club.
I admire Teddy quite a bit, particularly for his courage at the funeral of my old boss, but sometimes he can frustrate. "I'm not a member; I continue to pay about $100," Kennedy told the Boston Herald, which then added, "He then said of being a member in a club that discriminates against women, 'I shouldn't be and I'm going to get out of it as fast as I can.'"
Um...Senator...if you're not a member, you don't have to "get out of it." So, obviously, you are.
I doubt this will happen, but Kennedy's resignation could reinvigorate the conversation about Harvard final clubs.
Here's the bottom line: Gentlemen, if
Skull and Bones can go co-ed, so can—and should—you.
Shrouding Summers
The Crimson runs
part two of Zachary M. Sewards' tick-tock of last winter's crisis in Mass. Hall. There's not a lot of breaking news in it, but the story is fascinating reading nonetheless for its meticulous description of the strategizing within the president's inner circle as his strategists desperately fought to save his job.
A couple of particularly interesting tidbits emerge.
One is the makeup of Summers' inner circle: Bob Rubin, Jeremy Knowles (what a crafty fellow that Knowles is—he'd have made a great spy), David Gergen (not so much crafty as craven; Gergen doesn't care who's in power, as long as that person gives Gergen access), and Sidney Verba.
(You will remember that it was
Verba who singlehandedly okayed Google's project to digitize Harvard's libraries, a project which was pushed by Larry Summers' former chief of staff,
Sheryl Sandberg. We know what's in it for Google: the legitimizing effect of Harvard's participation in a very controversial matter. Who knows what's in it for Verba?)
(Also, check out
David Gergen's website, with its hilarious picture of Gergen superimposed on an image of the White House, as if he were Abe Lincoln or something. The "latest news" section is a collection of Gergen media soundbites. Sheesh. And people gave
Cornel West a hard time.)
The second interesting factoid from Zachary Seward's article is the suggestion that Corporation senior fellow James Houghton pressured Summers to release the transcript of his remarks, and that Houghton's role was decisive in the decision to do that.
I don't know if Seward is running a third piece, but the article that I'd really like to read would detail the inner workings of the Corporation during this period. What the hell was going on inside that bizarre little group? I'd love to know. Tough story to report, but Seward's sources seem to be pretty good.....
____________________________________________________________________
P.S. Here's a small-world, full-disclosure tidbit for you: After my mother read
Harvard Rules, she casually mentioned to me that, almost half a century ago, she used to date Jamie Houghton rather seriously...until
the man who would be my father came along.
Mom, you could have told me that
before I finished the book...
Frey: An Addendum
James
Frey has now password-protected his webpage, www.
bigjimindustries.com.
Which is kind of bad enough...but since the site doesn't actually give you a way to register, what it means is that you can't access it at all.
You know, for a guy who says he's so tough, constantly wanting to "kick the crap" out of people, enduring a full root canal without anaesthesia (uh-huh, I'm sure), James Frey is kind of a wuss.
Why James Frey Matters
Some of you have written asking why I care so much about James Frey's fabrications. It's still a good book, you've said. It's helped a lot of people.
I have some personal feelings related to having written a memoir myself and also my training in the craft of journalism. But mostly, I believe that truth does matter, and I worry that our culture is stumbling down a slippery slope of reality TV, presidential spin, academic corruption and made-up memoirs in which truth is becoming malleable, obsolete and irrelevant.
Michiko Kakutani writes about this phenomenon in a similar, more eloquent vein in today's Times. Frey's book, she argues,
...is not, however, just a case about truth-in-labeling or the misrepresentations of one author: after all, there have been plenty of charges about phony or inflated memoirs in the past, most notably about Lillian Hellman's 1973 book "Pentimento." It is a case about how much value contemporary culture places on the very idea of truth. Indeed, Mr. Frey's contention that having 5 percent or so of his book in dispute was "comfortably within the realm of what's appropriate for a memoir" and the troubling insistence of his publishers and his cheerleader Oprah Winfrey that it really didn't matter if he'd taken liberties with the facts of his story underscore the waning importance people these days attach to objectivity and veracity.
Kakutani smartly places Frey in the context of other cultural trends, such as postmodernism, which suggest that all truth is relative and, indeed, there may be no such thing as objective truth.
The Bush White House has used similar arguments to try to discredit the mainstream press and its watch-dog role, suggesting that there is no such thing as truly independent reporting or even a set of mutually agreed upon facts, that there are no distinctions between willfully partisan hacks and reporters who genuinely strive to deliver the best obtainable truth.This relativistic mindset compounds the public cynicism that has hardened in recent years, in the wake of corporate scandals, political corruption scandals and the selling of the war against Iraq on the discredited premise of weapons of mass destruction. And it creates a climate in which concepts like "credibility" and "perception" replace the old ideas of objective truth - a climate in which the efforts of nonfiction writers to be as truthful and accurate as possible give way to shrugs about percentage points of accountability, a climate in which Ms. Winfrey can declare that the revelation that Mr. Frey made up parts of his memoir is "much ado about nothing."
Now you know why James Frey matters—because truth matters, and the skepticism that objective truth exists doesn't stay confined to the genre of memoir, but creeps into historiography, politics, the law, and every other aspect of society
. If you don't believe me—if you think that James Frey's book helped millions, and so whatever he did is acceptable—let's turn this around
:
You weren't really alcoholic, you just say you were.
Are you sure you were raped? Maybe you just have a different perspective on a sexual encounter?
It doesn't matter if there weren't weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—there could have been.
Patrick Tillman died a hero's death.
Despite what Elie Wiesel says, the Holocaust didn't really happen. After all, his book is just a memoir.
You see? James Frey's game isn't hard to play. Anyone can do it, and if no one objects, soon everyone will. And the resulting cynicism, corruption, historical revisionism and violence is far more damaging to society than even the very painful—and real—problems of alcoholism and drug abuse.
