The President, or is it the Vive-President, is inexorable in his determination to remove the checks and balances that are a great American tradition (Bush seeks control of military lawyers' promotions, Boston Globe, December 15, 2007: A15).
First in the Justice Department, career lawyers were over-ruled by political appointees in a number of redistricting cases. Now in the military, Bush seeks to emasculate career military lawyers by making their promotion contingent on agreement with his political appointees. Surely a President (or a Vice President) interested in justice would wish to marshal multiple views on the legality of an issue rather than encourage "groupthink." That is what he will get if he is successful in gaining a veto over the promotion of career legal officers.
And, of course, the country and our troops will suffer as these legal officers are those who put themselves on the line to protest the torture memoranda produced by the political hacks in the Pentagon and Justice Department.
Sent to Boston Globe
Friday, December 21, 2007
The Telecoms and Retroactive Legislation
Mr McConnell has it wrong (Wider Spying Fuels Aid Plan for Telecoms, New York Times, December 16, 2007: A1, A30). Nobody wants to hobble the ability of the U.S. to identify terrorists. I do want the U.S. to use its anti-terrorist tools in a legal manner.
There always has been sufficiently strong legislation to allow the spy agencies to do their work as long as they did so in a proper manner. Doing the job properly meant subjecting their requests for surveillance to the FISA court for approval -- it was even possible to obtain ex-post approval so that agencies were not constrained from following up their suspicions in a timely manner. It is here that the agencies fell down by failing to submit their requests to court oversight.
The legislation under discussion must restore the checks and balances that are needed to maintain a democratic society.
As far as the Telecoms are concerned, I find that all retroactive legislation is unwarranted -- whether it creates a crime or absolves actors of a crime. After all, Qwest refused to honor the government's overly broad request -- the other could and should have done likewise. To allow them to escape the consequences of their illegal actions would be wrong.
Sent to New York Times
There always has been sufficiently strong legislation to allow the spy agencies to do their work as long as they did so in a proper manner. Doing the job properly meant subjecting their requests for surveillance to the FISA court for approval -- it was even possible to obtain ex-post approval so that agencies were not constrained from following up their suspicions in a timely manner. It is here that the agencies fell down by failing to submit their requests to court oversight.
The legislation under discussion must restore the checks and balances that are needed to maintain a democratic society.
As far as the Telecoms are concerned, I find that all retroactive legislation is unwarranted -- whether it creates a crime or absolves actors of a crime. After all, Qwest refused to honor the government's overly broad request -- the other could and should have done likewise. To allow them to escape the consequences of their illegal actions would be wrong.
Sent to New York Times
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
One more thing to thank George W. Bush for!
President Bush still hasn't learned to take responsibility or to apologize.
In his statement yesterday (Bush Troubled by Steroids in Baseball, New York Times, December 15, 2007) about the use of steroids in baseball there is no acknowledgement for his own culpability. For nine of the twenty years of the "Steroid Era" in baseball, he was owner of the Texas Rangers.
In his comments, there was no apology for his role as one of many owners who let a culture of drug use develop in the baseball leagues. Is it that he lacks memory of those dys, or is it that he has never, until now, had to take responsibility for his actions?
Yes, we must move on, but with a new commissioner who, like Kenesaw Mountain Landis, is independent of the team owners. Any votes for George W. Bush taking over in January 2009. I think not!
In his statement yesterday (Bush Troubled by Steroids in Baseball, New York Times, December 15, 2007) about the use of steroids in baseball there is no acknowledgement for his own culpability. For nine of the twenty years of the "Steroid Era" in baseball, he was owner of the Texas Rangers.
In his comments, there was no apology for his role as one of many owners who let a culture of drug use develop in the baseball leagues. Is it that he lacks memory of those dys, or is it that he has never, until now, had to take responsibility for his actions?
Yes, we must move on, but with a new commissioner who, like Kenesaw Mountain Landis, is independent of the team owners. Any votes for George W. Bush taking over in January 2009. I think not!
Professor James Thurber gives CEO's a bad name when he states that "[Bush has] taken a CEO approach to the Hill, which is offensive because people on the Hill want to be collaborators" (A Dealmaker He's Not, but Bush is Getting His Way, New York Times, December 14, 2007: A23).
That is true of company employees as well and it is a wise CEO who encourages his or her subordinates to contribute their ideas to the decisions of the firm. After all, like Mr Bush, most CEO's do not have the "technical expertise" to decide things alone. Nevertheless, Mr. Bush is a loner -- he's "the decider." I fear that Mitt Romney is a more intelligent version of the same autocratic type.
Sent to New York Times
That is true of company employees as well and it is a wise CEO who encourages his or her subordinates to contribute their ideas to the decisions of the firm. After all, like Mr Bush, most CEO's do not have the "technical expertise" to decide things alone. Nevertheless, Mr. Bush is a loner -- he's "the decider." I fear that Mitt Romney is a more intelligent version of the same autocratic type.
Sent to New York Times
Climate Goals
George W. Bush professes to want to halt global warming. However the refuses to do much about it, either in his bully pulpit or through legislative action.
This is surprising because, by the time Bush graduated from Harvard Business School in 1975, it was clear that one of the most robust findings in the psychological literature was that behavior was powerfully influenced by setting specific and hard goals and having people assess their progress toward these goals. This is true of the individual, the group, and the organization.
The young Mr. Bush must have learned this at the Harvard Business School. Why does he ignore this time tested insight?
If President Bush really wants to ameliorate the crisis in global warming then he needs to set tough goals for our country -- it not enough to sit on the sidelines and talk about the need to set goals or merely urge us "to do our best." That is a recipe for failure.
Sent to New York Times
This is surprising because, by the time Bush graduated from Harvard Business School in 1975, it was clear that one of the most robust findings in the psychological literature was that behavior was powerfully influenced by setting specific and hard goals and having people assess their progress toward these goals. This is true of the individual, the group, and the organization.
The young Mr. Bush must have learned this at the Harvard Business School. Why does he ignore this time tested insight?
If President Bush really wants to ameliorate the crisis in global warming then he needs to set tough goals for our country -- it not enough to sit on the sidelines and talk about the need to set goals or merely urge us "to do our best." That is a recipe for failure.
Sent to New York Times
Candidates supported by Former Republican Governors of Massachusetts
It is clear that one cannot believe the former male Republican governors. Bill Weld extolls Romney's Massachusetts tax cuts (Romney is the kind of leader we need, Boston Globe, December 14, 2007: A17); Paul Cellucci claims he raised taxes (Rudy will shake up Washington, Boston Globe, December 14, 2007: A17).
Who is right?
Sent to Boston Globe
Who is right?
Sent to Boston Globe
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Where is the Oversight?
Whatever happened to the Democrats' increased oversight of the administration. They seem to be complicit in its crimes.
Nancy Pelosi was among those briefed about the CIA adventures in waterboarding (C.I.A. Official in Inquiry Called a "Hero," New York Times, December 10, 2007). She apparently did not protest at the time and allowed these crimes to continue.
When are the Democrats going to stand up for the decent values of this country that have been so distorted by this Republican Administration?Sent to New York Times
Nancy Pelosi was among those briefed about the CIA adventures in waterboarding (C.I.A. Official in Inquiry Called a "Hero," New York Times, December 10, 2007). She apparently did not protest at the time and allowed these crimes to continue.
When are the Democrats going to stand up for the decent values of this country that have been so distorted by this Republican Administration?Sent to New York Times
CIA's Video Tapes
Let me see if I have got this right, Porter Goss when he was in the House of Representatives and a member of the intelligence committee recommended to the CIA that the interrogation tapes be preserved (C.I.A. Was Urged to Keep Interrogation Videotapes, New York Times, December 8, 2007: A1).
After Porter Goss becomes Director of the CIA, one of his senior subordinates orders the tapes destroyed without getting clearance from his boss. Once again, the CIA is out of control -- I am old enough to remember the Church Committee's findings. Once again, the Congress will have to take proactive action to reign in this rogue agency.
Alas, I expect the constraints that will have to be imposed may reduce our security in the short term but in the long run they will help reestablish the trust that Americans must have in the CIA and the trust that the world must have in America.
Sent to New York Times
After Porter Goss becomes Director of the CIA, one of his senior subordinates orders the tapes destroyed without getting clearance from his boss. Once again, the CIA is out of control -- I am old enough to remember the Church Committee's findings. Once again, the Congress will have to take proactive action to reign in this rogue agency.
Alas, I expect the constraints that will have to be imposed may reduce our security in the short term but in the long run they will help reestablish the trust that Americans must have in the CIA and the trust that the world must have in America.
Sent to New York Times
Incurious Bush
You claim that President Bush may have "established a new standard for presidential incuriosity" (The New Intelligence on Iran, Boston Globe, Wednesday, December 5th, 2007).
There are however other explanations for his behavior other than laziness. First Mr. Bush is a crafty person. There were things that he did not want to know, and any minimization of Iran's nuclear work was one of those things. If he did not know that Iran's behavior had changed, he could go on telling the world how evil Iran was.
A second, more flattering explanation, is that Mr. Bush is a very good intuitive psychologist. He knows that early impressions anchor one's position so that a false early impression could be detrimental to wise decision making. As the August information was of the anecdotal, unconfirmed kind, it would be sensible not to know its details so that later decisions would be free of inappropriate influences.
My bet is that he was just lazy.
Sent to Boston Globe
There are however other explanations for his behavior other than laziness. First Mr. Bush is a crafty person. There were things that he did not want to know, and any minimization of Iran's nuclear work was one of those things. If he did not know that Iran's behavior had changed, he could go on telling the world how evil Iran was.
A second, more flattering explanation, is that Mr. Bush is a very good intuitive psychologist. He knows that early impressions anchor one's position so that a false early impression could be detrimental to wise decision making. As the August information was of the anecdotal, unconfirmed kind, it would be sensible not to know its details so that later decisions would be free of inappropriate influences.
My bet is that he was just lazy.
Sent to Boston Globe
Thursday, December 6, 2007
I will never leave Guantanamo
Thanks to Sabin Willett for putting a human face on our detainees in the Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp (I will never leave Guantanamo, Boston Globe, December 3, 2007). Joseph, a pseudonym, has been found to be innocent but he is still imprisoned after six years until "the military could find a country to take him."
How about the United States?
Surely after six years of detention, we owe Joseph something. At the very least we should provide him entry as a legal refugee with a Green Card. But that is not enough. Most states now require some form of restitution for prisoners who are held improperly (he was found innocent in 2002). Let's see, what else do we owe Joseph?
1. We owe him compensation for his time behind bars. Let's see: six years is about 2190 days; let's assume he has been awake for 16 hours a day, that means he has suffered 3,540 hours of torment shackled in his cell, at $10.00 per hour, that means we owe him about $350,400.00 in compensation.
When he comes to the U.S. half of that should be placed in a locked-in IRA, the rest paid to him to support him until he becomes self-sufficient.
2. We owe him intensive language training along the lines of that provided to Peace Corps volunteers. This will rapidly bring him up to speed so he can function well in English, the language of his new home.
3. We owe him psychiatric counselling for the Post Traumatic Stress he is likely to be suffering.
That is what we owe Joseph, and that is what we owe all those at Guantanamo Bay who are found to be innocent. They all deserve better than what we did earlier to the innocent Uighurs who, to our shame, were dumped in an Albanian refugee camp without any other support.
Sent to Boston Globe
How about the United States?
Surely after six years of detention, we owe Joseph something. At the very least we should provide him entry as a legal refugee with a Green Card. But that is not enough. Most states now require some form of restitution for prisoners who are held improperly (he was found innocent in 2002). Let's see, what else do we owe Joseph?
1. We owe him compensation for his time behind bars. Let's see: six years is about 2190 days; let's assume he has been awake for 16 hours a day, that means he has suffered 3,540 hours of torment shackled in his cell, at $10.00 per hour, that means we owe him about $350,400.00 in compensation.
When he comes to the U.S. half of that should be placed in a locked-in IRA, the rest paid to him to support him until he becomes self-sufficient.
2. We owe him intensive language training along the lines of that provided to Peace Corps volunteers. This will rapidly bring him up to speed so he can function well in English, the language of his new home.
3. We owe him psychiatric counselling for the Post Traumatic Stress he is likely to be suffering.
That is what we owe Joseph, and that is what we owe all those at Guantanamo Bay who are found to be innocent. They all deserve better than what we did earlier to the innocent Uighurs who, to our shame, were dumped in an Albanian refugee camp without any other support.
Sent to Boston Globe
Limits on Contracting Out
Your story about the contractors at the Citizenship and Immigration Services offices in Vermont and California (Immigration Contractor Trims Wages, New York Times, December 2, 2007: A20) led me to wonder about what the limits of government out-sourcing should be.
It seems to me that hiring contractors by government should be reserved for two kinds of assignments. First, contractors should be employed for tasks requiring highly specialized skills which are not normally part of the government's repertoire. Second, contractors should be employed for short term one-off assignments. Work with long term prospects should be brought in house as soon as possible. The clerical work at the Immigration offices seem to require little specialized skill, just aptitude to internalize a long list of procedures, and seems to be a task that will continue long into the future given the number of legal immigrants becoming eligible for citizenship.
Similarly, now the war in Iraq is almost in its fifth year, we should have reduced the number of contractors on the ground, expanded the military, and brought most contractor jobs under military discipline. Our failure to do that has resulted in errors of omission (failure to maintain clean eating facilities) and commission (possibly unjustified shootings of Iraqi civilians).
Sent to New York Times
It seems to me that hiring contractors by government should be reserved for two kinds of assignments. First, contractors should be employed for tasks requiring highly specialized skills which are not normally part of the government's repertoire. Second, contractors should be employed for short term one-off assignments. Work with long term prospects should be brought in house as soon as possible. The clerical work at the Immigration offices seem to require little specialized skill, just aptitude to internalize a long list of procedures, and seems to be a task that will continue long into the future given the number of legal immigrants becoming eligible for citizenship.
Similarly, now the war in Iraq is almost in its fifth year, we should have reduced the number of contractors on the ground, expanded the military, and brought most contractor jobs under military discipline. Our failure to do that has resulted in errors of omission (failure to maintain clean eating facilities) and commission (possibly unjustified shootings of Iraqi civilians).
Sent to New York Times
The Capitol's Rich Afterlife
Contrary to your editorial (The Capitol's Rich Afterlife, New York Times, November 30, 207), there are some congressional veterans who do take up positions as "civic-minded partisans."
Former congressman, Bob Edgar, has recently taken up the Presidency of Common Cause. This is John Gardner's "peoples lobby." It is fighting to take private funding out of elections, for fair districts, for a paper trail vote, and to prevent media concentration.
I wish him well. Winning these battles is essential for our democracy.
Sent to New York Times
Former congressman, Bob Edgar, has recently taken up the Presidency of Common Cause. This is John Gardner's "peoples lobby." It is fighting to take private funding out of elections, for fair districts, for a paper trail vote, and to prevent media concentration.
I wish him well. Winning these battles is essential for our democracy.
Sent to New York Times
Friday, November 30, 2007
A tale of Two Waivers
Half of the money in Community Development Block Grants given to the Gulf States is supposed to be allocated to the poor (Poor are Lagging in Hurricane Aid, New York Times, November 16, 2007: A1, A29). The State of Mississippi asked for and received a waiver from the administration to disregard this restriction. As a consequence, so far less than 10% of the money has gone to help the impoverished in Mississippi.
We should note that Mr Bush is all to ready to issue waivers to help the well heeled. When it comes to the poor, no such luck.
Two years after Katrina, it is unconscionable that the President has not yet issued a waiver to local authorities in the Gulf Coast so that they do not have to contribute to the reconstruction funds. But we too are at fault for not demanding that he issue the waiver.
In the case of the poor people of the Gulf Coast, help delayed is help denied.
Sent to New York Times
We should note that Mr Bush is all to ready to issue waivers to help the well heeled. When it comes to the poor, no such luck.
Two years after Katrina, it is unconscionable that the President has not yet issued a waiver to local authorities in the Gulf Coast so that they do not have to contribute to the reconstruction funds. But we too are at fault for not demanding that he issue the waiver.
In the case of the poor people of the Gulf Coast, help delayed is help denied.
Sent to New York Times
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Tuna Greed
Mr Connaughton and Mr Hogarth are fervent in their defense of the bluefish tuna and the failure of the international community, through the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, to protect them (Tuna Greed, Boston Globe, November 26, 2007: A15).
One could wish that our political masters were so fervent about other international obligations: the US still has not ratified the 25 year old Law of the Sea Treaty which is still opposed by right wing republicans and some commercial interests; though surprisingly supported by the President.
International obligations are not to be undertaken on a piecemeal basis; failure of the US to ratify obligations like Kyoto and our abandonment of Consular Rules (the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations that ensures that jailed foreigners have the right to talk to consular officers) result in others being unwilling to ratify agreements that we feel are in our best interests.
We should move ahead with ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty which was recently reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and, now that Australia appears likely to sign on to the Kyoto accords, we should do likewise. President Bush's voluntary efforts on greenhouse gas restraint having proved unsuccessful.
Sent to Boston Globe
One could wish that our political masters were so fervent about other international obligations: the US still has not ratified the 25 year old Law of the Sea Treaty which is still opposed by right wing republicans and some commercial interests; though surprisingly supported by the President.
International obligations are not to be undertaken on a piecemeal basis; failure of the US to ratify obligations like Kyoto and our abandonment of Consular Rules (the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations that ensures that jailed foreigners have the right to talk to consular officers) result in others being unwilling to ratify agreements that we feel are in our best interests.
We should move ahead with ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty which was recently reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and, now that Australia appears likely to sign on to the Kyoto accords, we should do likewise. President Bush's voluntary efforts on greenhouse gas restraint having proved unsuccessful.
Sent to Boston Globe
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Business as Usual at Justice Department
It seems as though it is going to be business as before at the Justice Department (As AG takes oath, Bush vows a renewed trust at Justice Dept. Boston Globe, November 15, 2007: A7).
Bush claimed that Attorney General Mukasey will "bring clear purpose and resolve" to the Justice Department. I don't think anyone has argued that the present Justice Department lacked clear purpose and resolve; the problem was that the purposes were illegitimate -- the politicizing of justice.
The direction of this renewed purpose can be inferred from the President's other comments: that Alberto Gozales was a person of "integrity and decency." No one who approved the torture memoranda can reasonably be described as a person of integrity and decency; no one who called the Geneva Convention "quaint" can reasonably be called a person of decency and integrity.
So, if that is what the President thinks, I fear we are in for another fourteen months of disaster.
I hope that I am wrong. Attorney General Mukasey can prove me wrong by his future actions.
Sent to Boston Globe
Bush claimed that Attorney General Mukasey will "bring clear purpose and resolve" to the Justice Department. I don't think anyone has argued that the present Justice Department lacked clear purpose and resolve; the problem was that the purposes were illegitimate -- the politicizing of justice.
The direction of this renewed purpose can be inferred from the President's other comments: that Alberto Gozales was a person of "integrity and decency." No one who approved the torture memoranda can reasonably be described as a person of integrity and decency; no one who called the Geneva Convention "quaint" can reasonably be called a person of decency and integrity.
So, if that is what the President thinks, I fear we are in for another fourteen months of disaster.
I hope that I am wrong. Attorney General Mukasey can prove me wrong by his future actions.
Sent to Boston Globe
Rationing Health Care (Scroll Down)
Your letter writer, Dr. Mark Solomon, is correct in saying that the other countries with single payer health care systems ration care (Letter on "An Ailing Health System: Feel Better!" New York Times, November 13, 2007: A28).
What he fails to recognize is that the United States also imposes rationing. Rationing is by price. If you can afford it, or have good insurance, the United States health care is the best in the world. If you cannot afford it, then you have no health care at all. The appalling health statistics for the United States are a consequence of this lack of coverage.
So the rationing argument is a red herring and should not get in the way of our designing a more inclusive system.
Sent to the New York Times
What he fails to recognize is that the United States also imposes rationing. Rationing is by price. If you can afford it, or have good insurance, the United States health care is the best in the world. If you cannot afford it, then you have no health care at all. The appalling health statistics for the United States are a consequence of this lack of coverage.
So the rationing argument is a red herring and should not get in the way of our designing a more inclusive system.
Sent to the New York Times
Friday, November 16, 2007
Bush Defends Mukasey
The President's defense of Judge Mukasey was not persuasive (Bush, Defending Justice Nominee, sees Unfairness, New York Times, November 2, 2007: A1, 16). Two sentences would have got Judge Mukasey off the hook and increased his chances of being nominated.
The President could have said, "Waterboarding is torture. We don't do torture."
His silence on this point speaks eloquently to the policies of this Administration.
Sent to New York Times
Angry Voices (Scroll down)
I applaud the subterranean actions that Chris Pawloski and others in the Judge Advocate's office have undertaken to negate the effects of the Administration's "torture memoranda" (Letters, New York Times, October 5, 2007. A26).
Nevertheless it seems to me that this is additional evidence that we are moving inexorably to a government of men rather than laws. However despicable, the torture memoranda represented government policy. For individuals to undermine them was to invite anarchy.
If Chris Palowski and like-minded colleagues object to the policy they should have openly confronted it rather than privately undermining it.
Like the Generals who only spoke out on Iraq after retiring, these lawyers have been enablers of this Administration's disastrous policies.
Sent to New York Times (back in October)
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Over There.
Richard Rubin is wrong (Over There -- and Gone for Ever, New York Times, November 12, 2007). They are not gone for ever.
Even though my father never talked about his experiences in the First World War, I remember and honor him to this day. He emigrated from Wales to New South Wales in June of 1914. He returned to fight in the trenches on the Western front; he was gassed on the Somme in 1917, recovered and returned to the front in 1918 where he served until the Armistice. He was repatriated to Australia in 1919. He was not demobilized until New Years Day 1920, and returned to Wales shortly afterwards.
Much of this I found out when I saw his service records at the Australian archives and read about his unit's activities at the Australian National War Museum.
Like his colleagues who died in battle, his life was shortened by his war experiences. Of him like them, we may say with Lawrence Binyon (To the Dead):
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
Sent to the New York Times
Even though my father never talked about his experiences in the First World War, I remember and honor him to this day. He emigrated from Wales to New South Wales in June of 1914. He returned to fight in the trenches on the Western front; he was gassed on the Somme in 1917, recovered and returned to the front in 1918 where he served until the Armistice. He was repatriated to Australia in 1919. He was not demobilized until New Years Day 1920, and returned to Wales shortly afterwards.
Much of this I found out when I saw his service records at the Australian archives and read about his unit's activities at the Australian National War Museum.
Like his colleagues who died in battle, his life was shortened by his war experiences. Of him like them, we may say with Lawrence Binyon (To the Dead):
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
Sent to the New York Times
Primary Elections
No! The parties should not control the primary process (Into the primary pile-up, Boston Globe, Nov 12, 2007: page A10).
The Democrats and Republicans are just one of many parties contesting for our votes. Accordingly we, the people of Massachusetts, should control the process. The suggestions by the Secretary of State and his colleagues that we have regional rotating primaries makes good sense. Better still might be randomization each election cycle with five states drawn for the privilege of holding their primaries every two weeks from early February to early June.
Another good suggestion would be to rank order the states in terms of voter participation in the previous presidential election. Those states with high voter turnout would be assigned early primaries -- though an early state could, if it wished, swap its place in the queue with a later state. That would create an interesting strategic element to the process.
In any case, what is clear. The primary process is too important to be left to the two biggest political parties. Let us all support Secretary Galvin in his search for alternatives.
Sent to Boston Globe
The Democrats and Republicans are just one of many parties contesting for our votes. Accordingly we, the people of Massachusetts, should control the process. The suggestions by the Secretary of State and his colleagues that we have regional rotating primaries makes good sense. Better still might be randomization each election cycle with five states drawn for the privilege of holding their primaries every two weeks from early February to early June.
Another good suggestion would be to rank order the states in terms of voter participation in the previous presidential election. Those states with high voter turnout would be assigned early primaries -- though an early state could, if it wished, swap its place in the queue with a later state. That would create an interesting strategic element to the process.
In any case, what is clear. The primary process is too important to be left to the two biggest political parties. Let us all support Secretary Galvin in his search for alternatives.
Sent to Boston Globe
Impeach Cheney
There is a move afoot in Congress to impeach the vice president, Dick Cheney.
Although it is clear to me that the lies that got us into the Iraq war meet the criteria of being high crimes and misdemeanors, it is less clear that we should start an impeachment inquiry.
The argument against is that it will consume valuable congressional time that could be spent on more important issues.
The argument in favor is that it will defang Mr Cheney and render him impotent for the next year or so. This is a state much to be desired as he appears to be cheerleader in chief for some kind of attack on Iran.
Such an attack would be a disaster for the US which, at present, cannot successfully manage the two fronts in the battle against terrorism that are currently open: Afghanistan and Iraq.
On balance I support immediate impeachment.
Sent to Boston Globe
Although it is clear to me that the lies that got us into the Iraq war meet the criteria of being high crimes and misdemeanors, it is less clear that we should start an impeachment inquiry.
The argument against is that it will consume valuable congressional time that could be spent on more important issues.
The argument in favor is that it will defang Mr Cheney and render him impotent for the next year or so. This is a state much to be desired as he appears to be cheerleader in chief for some kind of attack on Iran.
Such an attack would be a disaster for the US which, at present, cannot successfully manage the two fronts in the battle against terrorism that are currently open: Afghanistan and Iraq.
On balance I support immediate impeachment.
Sent to Boston Globe
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
US Judge Questions Lawyer on Suit by Tortured Canadian
Thank you for continuing to follow the case of Mr Arar (U.S. Judge Questions Lawyer On Suit by Tortured Canadian, New York Times, November 10, 2007: A5).
Once again the US government is trying to evade its responsibility for what happened to Mr Arar who was arrested while changing planes at Kennedy airport and suffered extraordinary rendition to Syria where he was tortured.
As well as trying to hide behind the States Secret defense, the Government is now said to be arguing that Constitutional protections do not apply to Mr Arar because "the Constitution did not apply to noncitizens who suffered injury abroad."
I am no lawyer, but surely this is a specious defense. The first injury that Mr. Arar suffered was his arrest at Kennedy Airport. That surely is US territory so surely the Constitution applies?
I would call upon the US to do as Canada did and give Mr. Arar his day in court. In addition, at some point the US Supreme Court should take upon itself a review of the States Secrets defense. It was created illegitimately and needs thorough judicial review.
Sent to New York Times
Once again the US government is trying to evade its responsibility for what happened to Mr Arar who was arrested while changing planes at Kennedy airport and suffered extraordinary rendition to Syria where he was tortured.
As well as trying to hide behind the States Secret defense, the Government is now said to be arguing that Constitutional protections do not apply to Mr Arar because "the Constitution did not apply to noncitizens who suffered injury abroad."
I am no lawyer, but surely this is a specious defense. The first injury that Mr. Arar suffered was his arrest at Kennedy Airport. That surely is US territory so surely the Constitution applies?
I would call upon the US to do as Canada did and give Mr. Arar his day in court. In addition, at some point the US Supreme Court should take upon itself a review of the States Secrets defense. It was created illegitimately and needs thorough judicial review.
Sent to New York Times
Agency is Queried on Reservist Jobs
I thought we were all in this war together: but it seems not. Your story about reservists returning from Iraq being unable to take up their previous jobs saddened me (Agency Is Queried On Reservist Jobs, New York Times, November 9, 2007: A17).
I can see the difficulty a small employer might have in re-employing a returning veteran if the employer cannot afford to take on an additional person and does not want to fire the person who was hired as a replacement. Surely the our country could afford to pay the employer for the additional worker for some period of time so that personnel levels could adjust over time to an affordable level through attrition or turnover.
Once again, the brunt of this war is being born by our service persons and, in the case of reservists, by their employers. It is time that the government asked us to bear our share.Sent to New York Times
I can see the difficulty a small employer might have in re-employing a returning veteran if the employer cannot afford to take on an additional person and does not want to fire the person who was hired as a replacement. Surely the our country could afford to pay the employer for the additional worker for some period of time so that personnel levels could adjust over time to an affordable level through attrition or turnover.
Once again, the brunt of this war is being born by our service persons and, in the case of reservists, by their employers. It is time that the government asked us to bear our share.Sent to New York Times
Friday, November 9, 2007
Discovery of France
I enjoyed Caroline Weber's review of "The Discovery of France" by Graham Robb. It looks like a must read!
Her quotation about the localities from which different experts were drawn reminded me of the time just after the Second World War when the Breton onion sellers tramped the South Wales mining valleys selling their long strings of onions.
And how frustrated my mother was, who had been a French teacher, when she found they could not understand her Parisian French (via the University of Wales) while my Welsh speaking father could with difficulty converse with them.
Sent to New York Times Book Review
Her quotation about the localities from which different experts were drawn reminded me of the time just after the Second World War when the Breton onion sellers tramped the South Wales mining valleys selling their long strings of onions.
And how frustrated my mother was, who had been a French teacher, when she found they could not understand her Parisian French (via the University of Wales) while my Welsh speaking father could with difficulty converse with them.
Sent to New York Times Book Review
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Safety Agency refuses more Funds
I think that Ms Nord's refusal of extra funding for the Consumer Product Safety Commission (Bigger Budget? No, Responds Safety Agency, New York Times, October 30th., 2007: A1) sinks to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. She should be impeached.
The failure of suppliers to provide a safe product (leaded toys, contaminated pet food, etc.) is clear evidence of market failure. It does not pay suppliers to provide safe products. When this occurs, then government regulation -- however much Republicans dislike it -- is the only solution. We see similar market failures in the financial sector: Deregulation of S&L's and more recently deregulation in the mortgage market. I hope there that Secretary Paulson will not be so stubbornly ideological as Ms. Nord is proving.
Oh yes, if convicted she should be forced to spend a week with a group of two year old children who have just had their red (lead) painted Thomas musical caboose taken away.
Sent to New York Times
The failure of suppliers to provide a safe product (leaded toys, contaminated pet food, etc.) is clear evidence of market failure. It does not pay suppliers to provide safe products. When this occurs, then government regulation -- however much Republicans dislike it -- is the only solution. We see similar market failures in the financial sector: Deregulation of S&L's and more recently deregulation in the mortgage market. I hope there that Secretary Paulson will not be so stubbornly ideological as Ms. Nord is proving.
Oh yes, if convicted she should be forced to spend a week with a group of two year old children who have just had their red (lead) painted Thomas musical caboose taken away.
Sent to New York Times
Primary Dates
I disagree with Jonathan Soros (Vote Early, Count Often, New York Times, October 30, 2007: A27) when he says that proposed solutions [to the rush to hold upfront primary elections] "mistake randomness for fairness."
He is wrong, when there is a scarce resource, like Tuesdays in the first two months of the year, the fairest way to allocate this scarce resource is through randomization. What Mr Soros's intriguing proposal (A June 1st primary deadline with open voting from Jan 1st) does is to remove the resource constraint. Now every day in the first half of an election year is voting day. The inhabitants of Pinkham Notch can still gather at midnight on New Year's Eve and cast all their votes at one second after midnight so that they can be the leading edge of the leading State of the primary season.
I am sure that there will be complaints that this will be technically infeasible, that it will be difficult to keep ballots safe for a six month period, and that politicians will have difficulty deciding where to campaign. I am sure such mundane details can be worked out. His suggestion is worthy of careful consideration.
Sent to New York Times
He is wrong, when there is a scarce resource, like Tuesdays in the first two months of the year, the fairest way to allocate this scarce resource is through randomization. What Mr Soros's intriguing proposal (A June 1st primary deadline with open voting from Jan 1st) does is to remove the resource constraint. Now every day in the first half of an election year is voting day. The inhabitants of Pinkham Notch can still gather at midnight on New Year's Eve and cast all their votes at one second after midnight so that they can be the leading edge of the leading State of the primary season.
I am sure that there will be complaints that this will be technically infeasible, that it will be difficult to keep ballots safe for a six month period, and that politicians will have difficulty deciding where to campaign. I am sure such mundane details can be worked out. His suggestion is worthy of careful consideration.
Sent to New York Times
Bush on New Orleans and San Diego
In his remarks about Katrina and the California fires, the President claimed that California did not have a corruption problem. How can he have forgotten the recent scandals involving members of the San Diego City Council? How can he have forgotten the crimes of Duke Cunningham who came from a nearby congressional district?
The President has a very short memory!
Sent to Boston Globe
The President has a very short memory!
Sent to Boston Globe
Second Acts
I enjoyed Ellen Goodman's piece on second acts (Boston Globe, October 19, 2007: A17).
I used to be a Professor and a Researcher. Since relocating from Toronto to Cambridge -- I figure there is enough research going on here -- I have reinvented myself as a volunteer and gadfly. A few years ago, one of my friends went partially blind. During his recovery he used taped versions of his academic journals. I therefore record for the blind a couple of mornings a week. I also volunteer a day a week at Common Cause because I have always been impressed with the energy expends to keep politics honest and open -- that's a task that will long be with us.
In my gadfly mode I write op-eds and letters to the editor -- mainly about politics and managerial issues. Now if only I could figure out a way to get more of them published!
I hope that others of my generation will join me in these activities.
Sent to Boston Globe
I used to be a Professor and a Researcher. Since relocating from Toronto to Cambridge -- I figure there is enough research going on here -- I have reinvented myself as a volunteer and gadfly. A few years ago, one of my friends went partially blind. During his recovery he used taped versions of his academic journals. I therefore record for the blind a couple of mornings a week. I also volunteer a day a week at Common Cause because I have always been impressed with the energy expends to keep politics honest and open -- that's a task that will long be with us.
In my gadfly mode I write op-eds and letters to the editor -- mainly about politics and managerial issues. Now if only I could figure out a way to get more of them published!
I hope that others of my generation will join me in these activities.
Sent to Boston Globe
New Orleans and San Diego
We cannot compare what occurred in New Orleans with what occurred on the outskirts of San Diego (A Firestorm, a Deluge, And a Sharp Political Dig, New York Times, October 27, 2007: A11). To see the differences, you just need to look at the map.
The core of New Orleans and its hinterland were destroyed by the storm and the subsequent flooding. There were few or no resources to be drawn on immediately from surrounding communities. In San Diego, the core of the city was untouched, the fire raged in the outer suburban areas. With the advantage of internal lines of communication -- fanning out from the city to the suburbs -- authorities in San Diego could rapidly bring help to the people displaced by the fire. The authorities in New Orleans did not have that advantage: the center was under water, the resources were unavailable.
For the President to claim credit for the superior results in marshalling aid that were due to geographic advantage is preposterous! Sent to New York Times
The core of New Orleans and its hinterland were destroyed by the storm and the subsequent flooding. There were few or no resources to be drawn on immediately from surrounding communities. In San Diego, the core of the city was untouched, the fire raged in the outer suburban areas. With the advantage of internal lines of communication -- fanning out from the city to the suburbs -- authorities in San Diego could rapidly bring help to the people displaced by the fire. The authorities in New Orleans did not have that advantage: the center was under water, the resources were unavailable.
For the President to claim credit for the superior results in marshalling aid that were due to geographic advantage is preposterous! Sent to New York Times
Friday, October 19, 2007
More on "The 'Good Germans' among Us"
If more evidence were needed that Frank Rich's views about an anti-war silent majority out there in the country is wrong, Massachusetts has provided it. Despite winning the seat in the Congressional 5th District (formerly held by liberal Marty Meehan), an attractive Democratic candidate with instant name recognition, Niki Tsongas could only eke out a 51% to 45% victory over Republican, Jim Ogonowski.
This in a liberal state after four years of unsuccessful war, an inept president and an abdication of all the principles that made America great (justice, rule of law, avoidance of torture, etc.). I think there are a lot of silent war supporters out there.
Sent to New York Times
This in a liberal state after four years of unsuccessful war, an inept president and an abdication of all the principles that made America great (justice, rule of law, avoidance of torture, etc.). I think there are a lot of silent war supporters out there.
Sent to New York Times
The "Good Germans" among us
Frank Rich (October 14) excoriates the "silent majority" for its silence on the Iraq war. I think that he is wrong to do so.
First of all, it is only in the last year that public opinion has swung against the war, up till then, the majority of Americans thought that the war was a good idea. They may have been deceived into thinking so, but they did generally support the administration's policies.
Many other letter writers (October 16) have, like me, stated that they have opposed the administration's policies from the beginning and that they have written letters and signed petitions. That is true, but I have not seen any newspaper reports of these petitions, so this virtual world of opposition is inchoate and the members are unconnected from one another.
For myself, I have written many letters and op-eds for the New York Times (and your sister publication the Boston Globe) in opposition to the appalling policies of this administration -- just a few were published.
In May 2004, I was a late starter, I protested the Abu Ghraib scandal, the lack of lawyers for "enemy combatants, the unfair extension of troop assignments to Iraq, and the failure of General Zinni to support General Shinseki on troop level requirements before the war began. In June I protested the lack of accountability in the Administration and the incompetence of the contractors (on the minor issue of keeping mess kitchens clean). By December, I was concerned about paying for the war and prepared an op-ed with a partial solution based on Britain's post-war credit scheme of World War II. This was not published by I e-mailed it to every member of the senate. I am trying now with the House committee that is working on an income tax surcharge. In 2005, I opposed the privatization of social security, I laid out Bush's violation of his espoused values. I protested the abandonment of Consular Rules (the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations that ensures that jailed foreigners have the right to talk to consular officers). I excoriated the poor leadership example of Donald Rumsfeld sitting inside the secure shell of a heavily armored Rhino Runner while the troops he leads travel in unarmored Humvees. In July, I bewailed the loss of civil liberties by updating the poem "They came for me." In 2006, I continued my concern about the lack of accountability in the Administration and the Military. I opposed on several occasions the "States Secrets Defence" and expressed my concern with the callous treatment of the Uighurs and theose wrongfully exposed to extraordinary rendition. Again in 2007 I have pursued the war, the removal of Habeas Corpus and other violations of the spirit of the Constitution by the Bush Administration.
Frank, what more can I do?
Sent to New York Times
First of all, it is only in the last year that public opinion has swung against the war, up till then, the majority of Americans thought that the war was a good idea. They may have been deceived into thinking so, but they did generally support the administration's policies.
Many other letter writers (October 16) have, like me, stated that they have opposed the administration's policies from the beginning and that they have written letters and signed petitions. That is true, but I have not seen any newspaper reports of these petitions, so this virtual world of opposition is inchoate and the members are unconnected from one another.
For myself, I have written many letters and op-eds for the New York Times (and your sister publication the Boston Globe) in opposition to the appalling policies of this administration -- just a few were published.
In May 2004, I was a late starter, I protested the Abu Ghraib scandal, the lack of lawyers for "enemy combatants, the unfair extension of troop assignments to Iraq, and the failure of General Zinni to support General Shinseki on troop level requirements before the war began. In June I protested the lack of accountability in the Administration and the incompetence of the contractors (on the minor issue of keeping mess kitchens clean). By December, I was concerned about paying for the war and prepared an op-ed with a partial solution based on Britain's post-war credit scheme of World War II. This was not published by I e-mailed it to every member of the senate. I am trying now with the House committee that is working on an income tax surcharge. In 2005, I opposed the privatization of social security, I laid out Bush's violation of his espoused values. I protested the abandonment of Consular Rules (the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations that ensures that jailed foreigners have the right to talk to consular officers). I excoriated the poor leadership example of Donald Rumsfeld sitting inside the secure shell of a heavily armored Rhino Runner while the troops he leads travel in unarmored Humvees. In July, I bewailed the loss of civil liberties by updating the poem "They came for me." In 2006, I continued my concern about the lack of accountability in the Administration and the Military. I opposed on several occasions the "States Secrets Defence" and expressed my concern with the callous treatment of the Uighurs and theose wrongfully exposed to extraordinary rendition. Again in 2007 I have pursued the war, the removal of Habeas Corpus and other violations of the spirit of the Constitution by the Bush Administration.
Frank, what more can I do?
Sent to New York Times
Supreme Court Rejects States Secrets Appeal
I was disappointed that the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of Mr el-Masri in his case against the CIA. The decision was presumably based on the State Secrets Defense put forward by the Government
This is another case of irresponsible treatment by the United States. Mr Kahled el-Masri was the victim of a mistaken identity. He was seized by the CIA in Macedonia, held by the CIA for five months in a prison cell in Afghanistan to which he had been rendered, and when it was discovered that the CIA had the wrong man he was returned to Macedonia and dumped on the side of an abandoned road. Note that: dumped on the side of a road, not taken to a decent hotel, not fed and given clothes, and not given help in re-establishing his life. Who decided on this treatment. Is it just some insensitive lower level bureaucrat or did the decision emanate from the highest levels of the CIA?
The time must come when the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of the State Secrets Defence. Apparently its first promulgation was in a case that did not affect State Security but was an embarrassment to the Air Force. Surely a Court whose members have high levels of security clearance could be constituted to judge whether or not State Security is involved rather than us having to accept the word of the government; especially the word of this government!
But the ACLU had a nice letter
Sent to Boston Globe
This is another case of irresponsible treatment by the United States. Mr Kahled el-Masri was the victim of a mistaken identity. He was seized by the CIA in Macedonia, held by the CIA for five months in a prison cell in Afghanistan to which he had been rendered, and when it was discovered that the CIA had the wrong man he was returned to Macedonia and dumped on the side of an abandoned road. Note that: dumped on the side of a road, not taken to a decent hotel, not fed and given clothes, and not given help in re-establishing his life. Who decided on this treatment. Is it just some insensitive lower level bureaucrat or did the decision emanate from the highest levels of the CIA?
The time must come when the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of the State Secrets Defence. Apparently its first promulgation was in a case that did not affect State Security but was an embarrassment to the Air Force. Surely a Court whose members have high levels of security clearance could be constituted to judge whether or not State Security is involved rather than us having to accept the word of the government; especially the word of this government!
But the ACLU had a nice letter
Sent to Boston Globe
Sauce for the goose but no sauce for the gander
Why is it that you identify David D'Alessandro as former CEO of John Hancock Financial Services but you fail to identify Michael Gerson as former chief speech writer for George W. Bush?
Could it be that Mr Gerson is ashamed of his former employment?
Sent to Boston Globe
Could it be that Mr Gerson is ashamed of his former employment?
Sent to Boston Globe
On-Line Courtesy
The Globe should be careful about the letters it prints, they may return to haunt it. In today's business pages, Yleana Martinez complains about employers who are too lazy to respond to e-mailed job applications with an acknowledgment that the application has been received.
The letters page at the Globe is very good at acknowledging receipt of letters that I submit -- they even publish them occasionally. However the op-ed page still has to come into the 21st century. There is no automatic acknowledgment and usually -- even after several promptings -- I receive no reply so I am left to wonder whether my work was ever received or whether it is just floating around in cyberspace. An automatic response feature would set everyone's mind at rest.
Sent to Boston Globe
The letters page at the Globe is very good at acknowledging receipt of letters that I submit -- they even publish them occasionally. However the op-ed page still has to come into the 21st century. There is no automatic acknowledgment and usually -- even after several promptings -- I receive no reply so I am left to wonder whether my work was ever received or whether it is just floating around in cyberspace. An automatic response feature would set everyone's mind at rest.
Sent to Boston Globe
Monday, October 8, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
In 2008, Gore v. Bush Redux?
Your columnist Bob Herbert should be aware that the Democrats hands are not clean when it comes to suggestions that a state's electoral votes be apportioned according to some other principle than the winner take all system used in most states (In 2008, Bush v. Gore Redux?, New York Times, September22, 2007).
In 2004 the local Democrats tried to change Colorado's winner take all system to a system based on the proportion of the popular vote in the state. In this year Democrats in North Carolina had to be forcibly told to stop trying the same ploy as that proposed in California (by Congressional district) because of the Democrats' opposition to the California initiative.
Both parties try to make electoral arrangements that will benefit themselves.
I am not a fan of the process being used by the National Popular Vote Campaign (an interstate compact), but a Constitutional amendment to make the President's election based on the national popular vote would set a level playing field for all parties.
Sent to New York Times
In 2004 the local Democrats tried to change Colorado's winner take all system to a system based on the proportion of the popular vote in the state. In this year Democrats in North Carolina had to be forcibly told to stop trying the same ploy as that proposed in California (by Congressional district) because of the Democrats' opposition to the California initiative.
Both parties try to make electoral arrangements that will benefit themselves.
I am not a fan of the process being used by the National Popular Vote Campaign (an interstate compact), but a Constitutional amendment to make the President's election based on the national popular vote would set a level playing field for all parties.
Sent to New York Times
Habeas Corpus
What is it that the 42 Republican Senators (and Senator Lieberman) do not understand about the nature of suspicion (Senate Blocks Detainees’ Rights Bill, New York Times, September 19th, 2007)?
The people detained at Guantanamo are suspected of terrorism. They have NOT been proved to be terrorists -- many maybe are; but many may not be. The essence of suspicion is that it is rife with uncertainty.
That is the point of habeas corpus: to provide a hearing where suspects may challenge the basis of their being placed in that category. No government with right on its side need be afraid of habeas corpus.
Unless habeas corpus is restored in a timely fashion, the terrorists will have won another victory.
Sent to New York Times
The people detained at Guantanamo are suspected of terrorism. They have NOT been proved to be terrorists -- many maybe are; but many may not be. The essence of suspicion is that it is rife with uncertainty.
That is the point of habeas corpus: to provide a hearing where suspects may challenge the basis of their being placed in that category. No government with right on its side need be afraid of habeas corpus.
Unless habeas corpus is restored in a timely fashion, the terrorists will have won another victory.
Sent to New York Times
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Condoleeza Rice
What on earth is the Secretary of State doing writing a book, The Strategy of Campaigning, which was published in August 2007 (Politics Starts at the Water's Edge, September 15, 2007)?
Surely she should have been minding the store as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State.
Another case of the Bush Administration not "keeping it's eye on the ball."
Sent to the New York Times
Surely she should have been minding the store as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State.
Another case of the Bush Administration not "keeping it's eye on the ball."
Sent to the New York Times
The President's Speech
If the President is to be credible tonight [September 13], his speech has to include the following plans -- in addition to his plans for troop deployment and strategy.
First, he has to devise a plan to pay for the war. It is unconscionable to pile up debt for this war of choice and then put the burden of paying for it on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren -- the very people who are fighting the war.
Second, America must play its part in resolving the refugee crisis created by the Iraq war. We should immediately open the gates so that refugees can come to America. Over the past year or two, we have allowed in a few thousand refugees from Iraq, Sweden has allowed in about 20,000. For shame on us. Furthermore, people should be allowed to apply from within Iraq and not have to travel to Jordan to make application for refugee status.
Finally, we should provide an immediate infusion of several billion dollars to aid those countries that have taken in about two million refugees (Jordan, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States). Unless we do so their education, health, and welfare systems will collapse -- then, to use the President's Vietnam metaphor, the dominoes will fall.
Sent to the New York Times
First, he has to devise a plan to pay for the war. It is unconscionable to pile up debt for this war of choice and then put the burden of paying for it on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren -- the very people who are fighting the war.
Second, America must play its part in resolving the refugee crisis created by the Iraq war. We should immediately open the gates so that refugees can come to America. Over the past year or two, we have allowed in a few thousand refugees from Iraq, Sweden has allowed in about 20,000. For shame on us. Furthermore, people should be allowed to apply from within Iraq and not have to travel to Jordan to make application for refugee status.
Finally, we should provide an immediate infusion of several billion dollars to aid those countries that have taken in about two million refugees (Jordan, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States). Unless we do so their education, health, and welfare systems will collapse -- then, to use the President's Vietnam metaphor, the dominoes will fall.
Sent to the New York Times
Saturday, September 15, 2007
New Career Structure for the Army
In his article on the failures in Iraq, Fred Kaplan (Challenging the Generals, New York Times Magazine, August 24, 2007 pages 34-39) states that the US Military has to change its career structure from one in which those promoted General come up through a single branch of the service and are rewarded for this narrow focus to one that encourages a person to take a broad view with an appreciation for the work of a number of different branches of the service and indeed other options including diplomacy and liaison with foreign military units.
These different career structures are well known in modern organizations. The first, where promotion occurs through the narrow focus, the manager moves through a series of assignments involving larger or more important units of the same type. This is called a command centered career structure. The second where promotion occurs by moving to different types of unit doing different types of things is called a constructional career structure.
Many in the US Army are hoping that the Army moves from the command centered career structure to the constructional career structure by changing the criteria used by promotion boards who select the men and women for promotion from Full Colonel to Brigadier General. That will be insufficient -- changing a career structure in a large organization is extraordinarily difficult.
The rewards and encouragements must be incorporated much earlier in the individuals' careers, Right now, one of Kaplan's informants tells him that the Army promotes the "can-do, go-to people." Obviously this skill is important, but so are others. From the officers' earliest time in the military, both the goals associated with the current focus of the job must be set high but other learning goals about other units and their activities also need to be set. The young officer then needs to be rewarded and promoted for achieving both goals not just for one. These two types of goals then need to be instituted at all ranks between Lieutenant and Colonel so that mid level officers like Captain Kip Kowalski do not feel that if they take lateral moves to other parts of the military such as becoming Foreign Affairs Officer means that they can "never come back" to the regular infantry. This, of course, comes at the cost of lesser expertise: the more officers make these lateral moves, the more apposite becomes the old saying: "jack of all trades, master of none". But you can't have it both ways: as many large corporations have found. But this is the only way to develop top executives with a proper overview of their business.
Without this change in focus and reward at each of these levels, the high level promotion board will have few candidates to select with the breadth and knowledge required by today's General Officers
Hugh P Gunz & Martin G. Evans
Sent to New York Times Magazine
These different career structures are well known in modern organizations. The first, where promotion occurs through the narrow focus, the manager moves through a series of assignments involving larger or more important units of the same type. This is called a command centered career structure. The second where promotion occurs by moving to different types of unit doing different types of things is called a constructional career structure.
Many in the US Army are hoping that the Army moves from the command centered career structure to the constructional career structure by changing the criteria used by promotion boards who select the men and women for promotion from Full Colonel to Brigadier General. That will be insufficient -- changing a career structure in a large organization is extraordinarily difficult.
The rewards and encouragements must be incorporated much earlier in the individuals' careers, Right now, one of Kaplan's informants tells him that the Army promotes the "can-do, go-to people." Obviously this skill is important, but so are others. From the officers' earliest time in the military, both the goals associated with the current focus of the job must be set high but other learning goals about other units and their activities also need to be set. The young officer then needs to be rewarded and promoted for achieving both goals not just for one. These two types of goals then need to be instituted at all ranks between Lieutenant and Colonel so that mid level officers like Captain Kip Kowalski do not feel that if they take lateral moves to other parts of the military such as becoming Foreign Affairs Officer means that they can "never come back" to the regular infantry. This, of course, comes at the cost of lesser expertise: the more officers make these lateral moves, the more apposite becomes the old saying: "jack of all trades, master of none". But you can't have it both ways: as many large corporations have found. But this is the only way to develop top executives with a proper overview of their business.
Without this change in focus and reward at each of these levels, the high level promotion board will have few candidates to select with the breadth and knowledge required by today's General Officers
Hugh P Gunz & Martin G. Evans
Sent to New York Times Magazine
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Junior officers' disquiet over Generals' speaking out in 2006
In the magazine several weeks ago, Fred Kaplan, (Challenging the Generals, New York Times Magazine, August 24, 2007 pages 34-39) states that many mid-level officers "reacted with puzzlement and disgust" at the retired generals being critical of the conduct of the Iraq war. Why didn't they speak out when they were in uniform and affect the course of the war?
In your reporting of the Generals' criticism, I do not think you ever talked about their failure to speak out earlier nor did you report on the disquiet caused to lower level officers. Had you done so, opposition to the war might have occurred much earlier.
Sent to New York Times
In your reporting of the Generals' criticism, I do not think you ever talked about their failure to speak out earlier nor did you report on the disquiet caused to lower level officers. Had you done so, opposition to the war might have occurred much earlier.
Sent to New York Times
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Universal Health Care
I do not understand why Secretary of Health and Human Services, JudyAnn Bigby, is so upset about changes in federal S-CHIP regulations (A fair shot at healthcare, Boston Globe, September 7, 2007, A19).
I thought that everyone in Massachusetts now had health insurance under the new law. I assumed that this included all children. In such a case, surely S-CHIP becomes irrelevant.
What is it that I am not understanding about the Massachusetts universal coverage plan?
Sent to Boston Globe
I thought that everyone in Massachusetts now had health insurance under the new law. I assumed that this included all children. In such a case, surely S-CHIP becomes irrelevant.
What is it that I am not understanding about the Massachusetts universal coverage plan?
Sent to Boston Globe
Lack of Compassion
Two columns on your op-ed page (Paul Krugman, Katrina all the Time, and Joseph Hoar, Abandoned at the Border, New York Times, September 31, 2007: A23) illustrate the depths to which we have sunk as a society. It is unconscionable that the President has not yet issued a waiver to local authorities in the Gulf Coast so that they do not have to contribute to the reconstruction funds. It is to be hoped that legislation pending in Congress will rectify that. But we are at fault for not demanding that he issue the waiver. In the case of the Gulf Coast, help delayed is help denied.
As for the Iraqi refugees, we should, at the outset of the war, have poured millions into the United Nations refugee agency to set up reception centers, hospitals and schools in the neighboring states of Jordan and Syria. We did not, so these countries, like our men and women in uniform, are bearing the brunt of the consequences of the Iraq war. Unlike the Vietnam war, these domino countries look very shaky and may fall into the anti-American camp unless there is a massive infusion of American aid to help the refugees. For these refugees, help delayed is help denied.
Those who work for the American in Iraq are in a "Catch-22." They cannot claim entry to the United States from Iraq -- they have to move to Jordan in order to apply. On the other hand the Unites States needs them to continue to work for us in Iraq as interpreters, laborers, and kitchen staff, so it is difficult for them to leave. In Iraq, we need to created protected enclaves where these people and their families can live. We need to change our policies so that these people can gain permits to enter the United States directly from Iraq without having to detour to Jordan. Once again, help delayed is help denied.
Sent to New York Times
As for the Iraqi refugees, we should, at the outset of the war, have poured millions into the United Nations refugee agency to set up reception centers, hospitals and schools in the neighboring states of Jordan and Syria. We did not, so these countries, like our men and women in uniform, are bearing the brunt of the consequences of the Iraq war. Unlike the Vietnam war, these domino countries look very shaky and may fall into the anti-American camp unless there is a massive infusion of American aid to help the refugees. For these refugees, help delayed is help denied.
Those who work for the American in Iraq are in a "Catch-22." They cannot claim entry to the United States from Iraq -- they have to move to Jordan in order to apply. On the other hand the Unites States needs them to continue to work for us in Iraq as interpreters, laborers, and kitchen staff, so it is difficult for them to leave. In Iraq, we need to created protected enclaves where these people and their families can live. We need to change our policies so that these people can gain permits to enter the United States directly from Iraq without having to detour to Jordan. Once again, help delayed is help denied.
Sent to New York Times
Democratic Bumper Sticker
Today I received an e-mail from Democratic operative James Carville asking me to vote for one of four possible candidates for a Democratic Bumper Sticker Slogan (http://www.dscc.org/slogan).
The choices were:
- W is out. Send the Right Wing with Him.
- What have the Republicans done for you lately (with a picture of a stylized elephant upside down)
- NO REPUBLICANS LEFT BEHIND IN D.C.
- 2006 was just the beginning
More Dems in '08
Have the Democrats learned nothing from the recent linguistic analyses of campaign utterances.
The first three of these choices fail because they focus on the Republicans. Two of them even give the Republicans face time on Democratic bumper stickers!. How stupid.
These three also focus on negatives. We want folk to vote FOR Democrats not AGAINST Republicans. So Democrats need a simple message that tells us why voting Democratic is a good idea.
How about: "Democrats Will Tell the Truth"
How about: "It's still the Economy"
How about: "Support the Troops -- Bring them Home"
Sent to New York Times
The choices were:
- W is out. Send the Right Wing with Him.
- What have the Republicans done for you lately (with a picture of a stylized elephant upside down)
- NO REPUBLICANS LEFT BEHIND IN D.C.
- 2006 was just the beginning
More Dems in '08
Have the Democrats learned nothing from the recent linguistic analyses of campaign utterances.
The first three of these choices fail because they focus on the Republicans. Two of them even give the Republicans face time on Democratic bumper stickers!. How stupid.
These three also focus on negatives. We want folk to vote FOR Democrats not AGAINST Republicans. So Democrats need a simple message that tells us why voting Democratic is a good idea.
How about: "Democrats Will Tell the Truth"
How about: "It's still the Economy"
How about: "Support the Troops -- Bring them Home"
Sent to New York Times
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Tillman Documentation
There are two things troubling about the aftermath following the death of Corporal Pat Tillman.
First is the fact that the Army lied about the way in which he died and created a heroic death out of what seems to be a friendly fire accident. It is worrying that field commanders and their superiors should engage in this type of deception.
Second, I say "seems to be" because there have been a number of different accounts of Tillman's death and it is unclear which version -- or some other version -- is correct. The President is refusing, using the claim of executive privilege, to release the documents that might shed light on the matter.
The President should release these documents immediately.
Sent to Boston Globe
First is the fact that the Army lied about the way in which he died and created a heroic death out of what seems to be a friendly fire accident. It is worrying that field commanders and their superiors should engage in this type of deception.
Second, I say "seems to be" because there have been a number of different accounts of Tillman's death and it is unclear which version -- or some other version -- is correct. The President is refusing, using the claim of executive privilege, to release the documents that might shed light on the matter.
The President should release these documents immediately.
Sent to Boston Globe
Work Ethic
I must strongly disagree with the statement about American workers contained in your editorial, Family Values Betrayed (New York Times, Friday, May 4th., 2007: A26).
American workers do not shun all "backbreaking entry-level jobs." They only avoid these jobs when the wages are so low that working at such a job does not provide a living wage.
Most Americans want to work but they also want to be fairly compensated for that work. When the CEO gets 400 times the compensation of the entry-level worker, something is clearly amiss.
Sent to New York Times in May -- late posting
American workers do not shun all "backbreaking entry-level jobs." They only avoid these jobs when the wages are so low that working at such a job does not provide a living wage.
Most Americans want to work but they also want to be fairly compensated for that work. When the CEO gets 400 times the compensation of the entry-level worker, something is clearly amiss.
Sent to New York Times in May -- late posting
Canada's properties in London
I would have thought that instead of selling properties in London (For Sale: Ottawa's foreign luxury homes, Globe and Mail, July 24, 2007, A1, A10), the Canadian Government could have rented them out on very good terms. This income stream could then be used to service mortgages on the smaller houses that would need to be purchased.
After all, they don't make Nash terrace houses any more.
Sent to Toronto Globe and Mail
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Health Care
Former Mayor Giuliani offers little in his "plan" for health care (A free-market cure for US health care system, Boston Globe, Aug. 3rd., 2007, A13).
First the tax free exclusion of $15,000 will do little for the near poor who are ineligible for Medicaid.
Second, encouraging people to personally pay for "minor expenses" will have the adverse effect of encouraging people to self-diagnose so as to avoid meeting those minor expenses, which add up over several family members. Self-diagnosis is dangerous as some serious diseases have
Sent to Boston Globe
similar initial symptoms to minor ailments.
Finally, as Kathy Schwartz of the Harvard School of Public Health has pointed out, genetic research is changing everything. The time will come when our knowledge of genetics will enable us to accurately assess the probablity that a given individual will have a dangerous and expensive disease. Even with current knowledge, Insurance Companies do a good job of selecting for coverage the healthy members of the population. With our increased knowledge, only a system with universal coverage and no possibility of "cherry picking" can be appropriate in the United States.
This, I think, means a single payer system.
Sent to Boston Globe
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Surgeons General (Scroll down: Frank Powers' letter)
Frank Powers doesn't have it quite right (Letters, Boston Globe, July 13th. 2007, A14).
He is correct that both the Reagan and Clinton administrations had health issues they didn't want talked about (AIDS and needle exchange respectively).
However, only the Bush administration appointed a surgeon general who knuckled under to political pressures. Those in the Reagan and Clinton administrations spoke out forcibly on the issues.
He is correct that both the Reagan and Clinton administrations had health issues they didn't want talked about (AIDS and needle exchange respectively).
However, only the Bush administration appointed a surgeon general who knuckled under to political pressures. Those in the Reagan and Clinton administrations spoke out forcibly on the issues.
The Matthew Effect
I am writing to complain about the incomplete identifying information given about your op-ed writer, Nigel Hamilton (The resurrection of Bill Clinton, Boston Globe, July 12, 2007, A15) who was identified as being a fellow of the McCormack Graduate School of Policy Studies.
Now, you and I know that the McCormack School is at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.
But I wonder how well this is known among all your readers. If it is not known then, absent complete information, it is likely that they will attribute the location of the McCormack Center to one of the more prestigious Universities in town such as Boston College, or Boston University, or even to one of those across the river, Harvard, MIT, or Tufts.
Please give complete information in the future.
Sent to Boston Globe
Now, you and I know that the McCormack School is at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.
But I wonder how well this is known among all your readers. If it is not known then, absent complete information, it is likely that they will attribute the location of the McCormack Center to one of the more prestigious Universities in town such as Boston College, or Boston University, or even to one of those across the river, Harvard, MIT, or Tufts.
Please give complete information in the future.
Sent to Boston Globe
Kennedy & Kerry on Finneran
Senators Kennedy and Kerry have been vocal in their condemnation of President Bush’s commutation of Lewis Libby’s jail sentence. Yet at home they are actively promoting what seems like a “senatorial pardon” for former Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas Finneran.
In the early fall – aided and abetted by Governor Patrick and several of his predecessors – they are planning on attending a massive fund-raising dinner (tickets $2,500 and up) to honor Mr. Finneran and raise money for his foundation which will provide funding to a variety of local charities.
The local organizer, Robert White, claims that the expected outpouring of affection for Mr. Finneran will nullify his conviction on Federal obstruction of justice charges: "Whatever misconceptions the federal government had about this man’s public life will be assuaged by the public demonstration for this event."
If the Senators believed in equal justice before the law, they would have no part in this charade. If they want to support charity they can do so directly without honoring Mr. Finneran as well.
Sent to Washington Post
In the early fall – aided and abetted by Governor Patrick and several of his predecessors – they are planning on attending a massive fund-raising dinner (tickets $2,500 and up) to honor Mr. Finneran and raise money for his foundation which will provide funding to a variety of local charities.
The local organizer, Robert White, claims that the expected outpouring of affection for Mr. Finneran will nullify his conviction on Federal obstruction of justice charges: "Whatever misconceptions the federal government had about this man’s public life will be assuaged by the public demonstration for this event."
If the Senators believed in equal justice before the law, they would have no part in this charade. If they want to support charity they can do so directly without honoring Mr. Finneran as well.
Sent to Washington Post
Vice President Cheney
All that! And you are still not calling for Vice President Cheney's resignation or impeachment.
Why not?
Sent to The New Yorker
Why not?
Sent to The New Yorker
Reed Hillman
I am a long time lefty -- but I think Brad Jones is right on this one.
Sent to Boston Globe
Sent to Boston Globe
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Commutation for Lewis Libby
With unerring skill, President Bush has chosen the worst of the three options open to him in dealing with Mr. Lewis Libby's conviction (The Prison Sentence ... Is Excessive, Washington Post, July 3, 2007, A4).
He could have done nothing which would have enraged his base but signaled his wish to uphold the rule of law. He could have pardoned Mr Libby which would have enraged his critics, but energized his base. Or he could have, and did, show clemency for Mr. Libby by reducing his sentence. This has enraged his critics and done much to signal his contempt for the rule of law -- as if another signal were needed.
His decision to reduce the sentence has also damaged Mr. Libby. By stating that he respected the jury verdict, he has seriously jeopardized Mr. Libby's ability to appeal the verdict. By reducing the sentence, he has jeopardized the carefully thought out balance between the seriousness of the crime and Mr. Libby's prior service. By appealing to our sympathy for Libby's wife and children he has undermined universalistic principles that underlie our laws. After all, many felons have wives and children who are not considered when sentencing occurs.
With all the legal talent at his disposal, how could he have made the worst of choices? By not seeking out or listening to advice. Yet another example of his administration's addiction to "groupthink."
Sent to Washington Post
He could have done nothing which would have enraged his base but signaled his wish to uphold the rule of law. He could have pardoned Mr Libby which would have enraged his critics, but energized his base. Or he could have, and did, show clemency for Mr. Libby by reducing his sentence. This has enraged his critics and done much to signal his contempt for the rule of law -- as if another signal were needed.
His decision to reduce the sentence has also damaged Mr. Libby. By stating that he respected the jury verdict, he has seriously jeopardized Mr. Libby's ability to appeal the verdict. By reducing the sentence, he has jeopardized the carefully thought out balance between the seriousness of the crime and Mr. Libby's prior service. By appealing to our sympathy for Libby's wife and children he has undermined universalistic principles that underlie our laws. After all, many felons have wives and children who are not considered when sentencing occurs.
With all the legal talent at his disposal, how could he have made the worst of choices? By not seeking out or listening to advice. Yet another example of his administration's addiction to "groupthink."
Sent to Washington Post
Monday, July 2, 2007
Justice Scalia
However much one disapproves of Justice Scalia's views and the damage they are causing to the US, one has to admire his honesty (Even in Agreement Scalia Puts Roberts to the Lash, New York Times, June 28, 2007, A1 and A16).
Of course it was impossible for Justices Roberts and Alito to sign an opinion that explicitly overturned a prior Supreme Court Ruling. After all these gentlemen had, in their confirmation hearings, piously stated that precedents were sacred and that they would not overrule them (the doctrine of Stare Decisis).
Their actions in the last few decisions have indicated that this was all talk and that they had no intention of conforming to precedent.
These justices lied to get confirmed. On those grounds they should be impeached.
Sent to the New York Times
Of course it was impossible for Justices Roberts and Alito to sign an opinion that explicitly overturned a prior Supreme Court Ruling. After all these gentlemen had, in their confirmation hearings, piously stated that precedents were sacred and that they would not overrule them (the doctrine of Stare Decisis).
Their actions in the last few decisions have indicated that this was all talk and that they had no intention of conforming to precedent.
These justices lied to get confirmed. On those grounds they should be impeached.
Sent to the New York Times
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Gitmo cleaned up
I am impressed with Col Morris Davies' ability to make Gitmo seem like a model prison and the justice system in place as truly reflecting international standards (The Guantanamo I know, New York Times, June 26, 2007, A25).
Of course, he can only do this by providing a very ahistorical account.
First, the very fact that the US government lost the Hamdan case means that prior to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, detainees did not receive the protections of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention or Article 75 of the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. It
seems to me that justice rendered only because a court insisted on it is a very poor sort of justice for which Colonel Davies and his military lawyer colleagues should be ashamed.
Second, Col Davies claims that "[the prisoner] is entitled to assistance to secure evidence on his behalf." This is patently untrue -- or was up to a year ago. In June of 2006, your sister newspaper, The Boston Globe, published a story pointing out that detainees were not given the help they needed (Detainees not given access to witnesses, Boston Globe, June 18, 2006, A1). This catalogued the failure of the United States' Authorities to find witnesses who might
have been able to exonerate some of the prisoners held at Guantanamo.
I cannot understand how those responsible did not try with every fibre of their being to find those witnesses. Instead they took a lackadaisical approach that seems typical of the Bush administration.
As with Katrina, it is hard to know whether the neglect of the duty owed to the prisoners was deliberate and malign or mere ineptitude.
The story of Gitmo is darker than that painted by Col. Davies. The time has come to close it.
Sent to New York Times
Of course, he can only do this by providing a very ahistorical account.
First, the very fact that the US government lost the Hamdan case means that prior to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, detainees did not receive the protections of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention or Article 75 of the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. It
seems to me that justice rendered only because a court insisted on it is a very poor sort of justice for which Colonel Davies and his military lawyer colleagues should be ashamed.
Second, Col Davies claims that "[the prisoner] is entitled to assistance to secure evidence on his behalf." This is patently untrue -- or was up to a year ago. In June of 2006, your sister newspaper, The Boston Globe, published a story pointing out that detainees were not given the help they needed (Detainees not given access to witnesses, Boston Globe, June 18, 2006, A1). This catalogued the failure of the United States' Authorities to find witnesses who might
have been able to exonerate some of the prisoners held at Guantanamo.
I cannot understand how those responsible did not try with every fibre of their being to find those witnesses. Instead they took a lackadaisical approach that seems typical of the Bush administration.
As with Katrina, it is hard to know whether the neglect of the duty owed to the prisoners was deliberate and malign or mere ineptitude.
The story of Gitmo is darker than that painted by Col. Davies. The time has come to close it.
Sent to New York Times
More on Inspection
I agree with nearly everything that David Leonhardt (A Lesson That Thomas Could Teach, New York Times, Business Day, June 20, 2007. C1, C8) says about the problems of outsourcing. The interface between the central firm and its suppliers does need to be managed and transaction costs do have to be incurred.
I disagree with his statement that "The government clearly needs to play a role here by inspecting more of the items coning into this country." No! The firms doing the importing should be responsible for inspecting the things that they bring into the country. If their inspections are non existent or failing then they should pay the penalty of being sued and be subject to penalties under consumer protection laws.
The executives of these companies RC2 and HIT should also be compelled to deal with my two-year old grandson who has just been deprived of his favorite Thomas Musical Caboose.
Sent to New York Times
I disagree with his statement that "The government clearly needs to play a role here by inspecting more of the items coning into this country." No! The firms doing the importing should be responsible for inspecting the things that they bring into the country. If their inspections are non existent or failing then they should pay the penalty of being sued and be subject to penalties under consumer protection laws.
The executives of these companies RC2 and HIT should also be compelled to deal with my two-year old grandson who has just been deprived of his favorite Thomas Musical Caboose.
Sent to New York Times
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Monday, June 18, 2007
Inspection
A second company has fallen foul of Chinese producers.
My question is didn't RC2 (sellers of Thomas the Tank engine) or the pet food maker, Menu Foods, do any inspection of the goods they imported. I thought it was standard operating procedure to carry out inspection of incoming products and semi-processed materials to make sure they met the specifications.
Apparently not!
Sent to New York Times
My question is didn't RC2 (sellers of Thomas the Tank engine) or the pet food maker, Menu Foods, do any inspection of the goods they imported. I thought it was standard operating procedure to carry out inspection of incoming products and semi-processed materials to make sure they met the specifications.
Apparently not!
Sent to New York Times
Uighurs and Mr el-Masri
Why have we become a nation characterized by callous indifference? Over the last two years the United States has dealt with a number of foreign individuals with an incomprehensible disregard for their well-being.
Last Sunday, the Boston Globe reported on the fate of 5 Chinese Uighurs (Globe, June 10, 2007, page A7). This followed a similar story about a year ago (Globe, May 18th, page A8). These were people captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and interred at Guantanamo Bay for several years. They had all been cleared of terrorist connections by a military tribunal but were kept, as innocent people, at Guantanamo because they could not be returned to their native China which they were fleeing. Instead they were sent to Albania where they live in misery in a refugee camp.
Why could the United States not have generously have resettled these people here in the United States? Instead they kept them at Guantanamo until February 2006 when the courts were about to hear their appeal to be released; they were then shipped to Albania where they are living in a Refugee Center in that impoverished country. One would think that after disrupting their lives, the United States would be eager to make amends by resettling these people in safety in the United States.
But this is not the only case of irresponsible treatment by the United States. Consider the fate of Mr Kahled el-Masri who was the victim of a mistaken identity. He was seized by the CIA in Macedonia, held by the CIA for five months in a prison cell in Afghanistan to which he had been rendered, and when it was discovered that the CIA had the wrong man he was returned to Macedonia and dumped on the side of an abandoned road. Note that: dumped on the side of a road, not taken to a decent hotel, not fed and given clothes, and not given help in re-establishing his life. To add insult to injury, his lawsuit against the CIA was dismissed on national security grounds. Who decided on this treatment. Is it just some insensitive lower level bureaucrat or did the decision emanate from the highest levels of the CIA?
Then there is Mr. Maher Arar, a Canadian of Syrian descent. He too was unjustly arrested, when in transit between Tunis and Ottawa while returning via New York from a holiday with his wife and children. In his case, after interrogation at Kennedy airport, he was rendered to the Syrians were he was kept in appalling conditions for a year until it was decided that he had no links to al-Qaeda. He was then returned to Ottawa. Unlike the Canadian Government which held an inquiry as to the role Canadian Police and Consular officials may have played in his arrest, a United States court also dismissed his case against the United States Government on National Security grounds.
All these people deserve better. The Uighurs should be brought from Albania and settled in the United States - if we can host 11 million illegal immigrants, adding five refugees whose lives we have upset is the least we can do. Mr el-Masri and Mr. Arar deserve to have their day in court or, failing that, there should be an inquiry (with some evidence given in secret) as to the reasons for their appalling treatment.
Sent to the Boston Globe
Last Sunday, the Boston Globe reported on the fate of 5 Chinese Uighurs (Globe, June 10, 2007, page A7). This followed a similar story about a year ago (Globe, May 18th, page A8). These were people captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and interred at Guantanamo Bay for several years. They had all been cleared of terrorist connections by a military tribunal but were kept, as innocent people, at Guantanamo because they could not be returned to their native China which they were fleeing. Instead they were sent to Albania where they live in misery in a refugee camp.
Why could the United States not have generously have resettled these people here in the United States? Instead they kept them at Guantanamo until February 2006 when the courts were about to hear their appeal to be released; they were then shipped to Albania where they are living in a Refugee Center in that impoverished country. One would think that after disrupting their lives, the United States would be eager to make amends by resettling these people in safety in the United States.
But this is not the only case of irresponsible treatment by the United States. Consider the fate of Mr Kahled el-Masri who was the victim of a mistaken identity. He was seized by the CIA in Macedonia, held by the CIA for five months in a prison cell in Afghanistan to which he had been rendered, and when it was discovered that the CIA had the wrong man he was returned to Macedonia and dumped on the side of an abandoned road. Note that: dumped on the side of a road, not taken to a decent hotel, not fed and given clothes, and not given help in re-establishing his life. To add insult to injury, his lawsuit against the CIA was dismissed on national security grounds. Who decided on this treatment. Is it just some insensitive lower level bureaucrat or did the decision emanate from the highest levels of the CIA?
Then there is Mr. Maher Arar, a Canadian of Syrian descent. He too was unjustly arrested, when in transit between Tunis and Ottawa while returning via New York from a holiday with his wife and children. In his case, after interrogation at Kennedy airport, he was rendered to the Syrians were he was kept in appalling conditions for a year until it was decided that he had no links to al-Qaeda. He was then returned to Ottawa. Unlike the Canadian Government which held an inquiry as to the role Canadian Police and Consular officials may have played in his arrest, a United States court also dismissed his case against the United States Government on National Security grounds.
All these people deserve better. The Uighurs should be brought from Albania and settled in the United States - if we can host 11 million illegal immigrants, adding five refugees whose lives we have upset is the least we can do. Mr el-Masri and Mr. Arar deserve to have their day in court or, failing that, there should be an inquiry (with some evidence given in secret) as to the reasons for their appalling treatment.
Sent to the Boston Globe
Student Loans
Deputy Secretary Kunin makes a convincing case for the abandonment of the discredited commercial loan scheme for students, but she does not go far enough.
What is needed is a restoration or even expansion of the student scholarship and grant programs that used to provide a substantial contribution to the costs of college.
In the 1980's Pell grants covered about two-thirds of the cost of a public four-year University, in recent years, it covers about 40%. This is one of the several ways in which the present generation is violating the idea of inter-generational equity with respect to student support.
The second has been the erosion of value in the minimum wage -- one argument for allowing the erosion to persist is that many of the minimum wage earners are young people living at home with their families. This may be so, but many young people may well be working in order to pay for or save for a college education. According to the College Board the average amount (in constant dollars) actually paid (after taking into account scholarship support) has increased 29% at Public 4-year Colleges (and almost 26% at Private 4-year Colleges) over the past 10 years. Over the same period, the value of the minimum wage has eroded from being worth $4.75 in 1996 to being worth $4.04 in 2006 -- a decline of almost 15%.
To maintain the affordability of College, we should be increasing the minimum wage to about $8.00 rather than to $7.25.
Finally, of course, is our failure to pay our way with debt piled upon debt that, in the end, our children will have to pay. If we are to go into debt, what better use for those funds than the education of our children.
Sent to New York Times
What is needed is a restoration or even expansion of the student scholarship and grant programs that used to provide a substantial contribution to the costs of college.
In the 1980's Pell grants covered about two-thirds of the cost of a public four-year University, in recent years, it covers about 40%. This is one of the several ways in which the present generation is violating the idea of inter-generational equity with respect to student support.
The second has been the erosion of value in the minimum wage -- one argument for allowing the erosion to persist is that many of the minimum wage earners are young people living at home with their families. This may be so, but many young people may well be working in order to pay for or save for a college education. According to the College Board the average amount (in constant dollars) actually paid (after taking into account scholarship support) has increased 29% at Public 4-year Colleges (and almost 26% at Private 4-year Colleges) over the past 10 years. Over the same period, the value of the minimum wage has eroded from being worth $4.75 in 1996 to being worth $4.04 in 2006 -- a decline of almost 15%.
To maintain the affordability of College, we should be increasing the minimum wage to about $8.00 rather than to $7.25.
Finally, of course, is our failure to pay our way with debt piled upon debt that, in the end, our children will have to pay. If we are to go into debt, what better use for those funds than the education of our children.
Sent to New York Times
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Civil Unions and Gay Marriage
Here in Massachusetts, the only State in the Union to permit Gay Marriage, we are coming up to a State Constitutional Convention where a Constitutional amendment sponsored by a mean spirited coalition will be voted on by our legislators. If it passes, it will then go on a state-wide ballot to be voted up or down.
One of the arguments that the proponents make is that legislators are not voting on whether they agree with the marriage amendment. They are only saying whether they think that the people of the State have the right to vote on the issue.
"Only" is not the word to be used in this context. The question is whether the rights of our gay and lesbian neighbors can be abrogated by a vote of the people. I think not. The State constitution is designed to protect the unpopular.
And let us leave religion out of this. We are talking here about the right to a Civil Marriage -- the kind of marriage you get at the courthouse or from a Justice of the Peace, not the kind you get in a church, mosque, or synagogue. The U.S Constitution mandates the separation of Church and State. It should be applied rigorously in this case.
In my view the legislators should not vote on the basis of their religious beliefs. They should not vote in favor of the amendment because the Archbishop told them to, or their Minister told them to, or even because their constituents told them to. The members of the legislature should vote unanimously against this amendment because it has the potential to deprive some of our fellow citizens of their civil rights.
Other States should rapidly adopt Massachusetts forward looking position.
Sent to New York Times
One of the arguments that the proponents make is that legislators are not voting on whether they agree with the marriage amendment. They are only saying whether they think that the people of the State have the right to vote on the issue.
"Only" is not the word to be used in this context. The question is whether the rights of our gay and lesbian neighbors can be abrogated by a vote of the people. I think not. The State constitution is designed to protect the unpopular.
And let us leave religion out of this. We are talking here about the right to a Civil Marriage -- the kind of marriage you get at the courthouse or from a Justice of the Peace, not the kind you get in a church, mosque, or synagogue. The U.S Constitution mandates the separation of Church and State. It should be applied rigorously in this case.
In my view the legislators should not vote on the basis of their religious beliefs. They should not vote in favor of the amendment because the Archbishop told them to, or their Minister told them to, or even because their constituents told them to. The members of the legislature should vote unanimously against this amendment because it has the potential to deprive some of our fellow citizens of their civil rights.
Other States should rapidly adopt Massachusetts forward looking position.
Sent to New York Times
Civil Unions and Gay Marriage
Here in Massachusetts, the only State in the Union to permit Gay Marriage, we are coming up to a State Constitutional Convention where a Constitutional amendment sponsored by a mean spirited coalition will be voted on by our legislators. If it passes, it will then go on a state-wide ballot to be voted up or down.
One of the arguments that the proponents make is that legislators are not voting on whether they agree with the marriage amendment. They are only saying whether they think that the people of the State have the right to vote on the issue.
"Only" is not the word to be used in this context. The question is whether the rights of our gay and lesbian neighbors can be abrogated by a vote of the people. I think not. The State constitution is designed to protect the unpopular.
And let us leave religion out of this. We are talking here about the right to a Civil Marriage -- the kind of marriage you get at the courthouse or from a Justice of the Peace, not the kind you get in a church, mosque, or synagogue. The U.S Constitution mandates the separation of Church and State. It should be applied rigorously in this case.
In my view the legislators should not vote on the basis of their religious beliefs. They should not vote in favor of the amendment because the Archbishop told them to, or their Minister told them to, or even because their constituents told them to. The members of the legislature should vote unanimously against this amendment because it has the potential to deprive some of our fellow citizens of their civil rights.
Other States should rapidly adopt Massachusetts forward looking position.
Sent to New York Times
One of the arguments that the proponents make is that legislators are not voting on whether they agree with the marriage amendment. They are only saying whether they think that the people of the State have the right to vote on the issue.
"Only" is not the word to be used in this context. The question is whether the rights of our gay and lesbian neighbors can be abrogated by a vote of the people. I think not. The State constitution is designed to protect the unpopular.
And let us leave religion out of this. We are talking here about the right to a Civil Marriage -- the kind of marriage you get at the courthouse or from a Justice of the Peace, not the kind you get in a church, mosque, or synagogue. The U.S Constitution mandates the separation of Church and State. It should be applied rigorously in this case.
In my view the legislators should not vote on the basis of their religious beliefs. They should not vote in favor of the amendment because the Archbishop told them to, or their Minister told them to, or even because their constituents told them to. The members of the legislature should vote unanimously against this amendment because it has the potential to deprive some of our fellow citizens of their civil rights.
Other States should rapidly adopt Massachusetts forward looking position.
Sent to New York Times
Monday, June 11, 2007
Apropos Roger Clegg's letter on Justice Thomas's view
Your correspondent Roger Clegg writes, "I suspect that many of Justice Thomas's critics would be horrified if they thought that the Bush Administration were ignoring the text of the Constitution or a federal law to advance what it viewed as a higher moral truth."
No need to suspect! We are horrified that the Bush administration (with the consent of a supine congress) has revoked habeas corpus. We are horrified that it has ignored its solemn obligations under international law (the Geneva Convention, The International Criminal Court, and the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations).
We are horrified by its espousal of torture and extraordinary rendition which are contrary to the rule of law.
To advance a higher moral truth, the means must be moral too.
Sent to New York Times
No need to suspect! We are horrified that the Bush administration (with the consent of a supine congress) has revoked habeas corpus. We are horrified that it has ignored its solemn obligations under international law (the Geneva Convention, The International Criminal Court, and the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations).
We are horrified by its espousal of torture and extraordinary rendition which are contrary to the rule of law.
To advance a higher moral truth, the means must be moral too.
Sent to New York Times
Show us the Money
I strongly endorse Susan Reed's plea that companies should reveal all compensation paid to each employee (Show us the money, New York Times, June 4, 2007, A23). Over 40 years ago, Industrial Psychologist, Ed Lawler, showed that pay secrecy reduced motivation in organizations. This occurred because in those answers to "nosy questions about pay to find out where they ranked" people lied and said that their compensation was greater than it actually was.
This had two effects: first people didn't believe there was any link between performance and pay because even mediocre performers seemed to be receiving high pay; second aspiring to high pay as a goal was devalued because any one, it seemed, could attain it. This results in reduced motivation to perform well.
Such transparency will also make more salient the gross disparity between top manager's pay and that of the rank and file. That and the desire not to have to justify salary differentials will make it difficult for firms to accept this transparency.
Sent to New York Times
This had two effects: first people didn't believe there was any link between performance and pay because even mediocre performers seemed to be receiving high pay; second aspiring to high pay as a goal was devalued because any one, it seemed, could attain it. This results in reduced motivation to perform well.
Such transparency will also make more salient the gross disparity between top manager's pay and that of the rank and file. That and the desire not to have to justify salary differentials will make it difficult for firms to accept this transparency.
Sent to New York Times
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Bush's Rhetoric
You remark that Bush's rhetoric was "different and heartening" (Playing to the crowd, New York Times, June 1, 2007, A30).
Bush's rhetoric is always heartening, at least when he can get the words out straight.
It is in execution that he falls down.
His rhetoric in Jackson Square, New Orleans was superb but he has yet to waive the state and local matching contributions to reconstruction costs that are needed for the main federal funds to flow.
What is he waiting for?
Sent to New York Times
Bush's rhetoric is always heartening, at least when he can get the words out straight.
It is in execution that he falls down.
His rhetoric in Jackson Square, New Orleans was superb but he has yet to waive the state and local matching contributions to reconstruction costs that are needed for the main federal funds to flow.
What is he waiting for?
Sent to New York Times
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Union "check off" (Boston Globe, Business Section)
Published in Globe Business Section, June 3, 2007. You need to scroll down as it is last letter. The last part of the URL refers to the first letter in the section.
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/06/03/cancer_free_but_not_free_of_cancer/
Here is a earlier, unpublished version referring to an op-ed that appeared a day earlier.
Your writer, Robert Gibbons (Boston Globe, May 28th, 2007. A11) is very misinformed if he believes that "No one would condone such tactics [coercion of employees to vote against a union] by any employer."
Well these tactics may not be condoned but such tactics are widely used against unions engaged in organizing campaigns. They include pressure and the firing of union activists.
These tactics may not be condoned, but it is very difficult to get Bush's National Labor Relations Board to discourage them.
It is for these reasons that unions are agitating for the "card check."
Sent to Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/06/03/cancer_free_but_not_free_of_cancer/
Here is a earlier, unpublished version referring to an op-ed that appeared a day earlier.
Your writer, Robert Gibbons (Boston Globe, May 28th, 2007. A11) is very misinformed if he believes that "No one would condone such tactics [coercion of employees to vote against a union] by any employer."
Well these tactics may not be condoned but such tactics are widely used against unions engaged in organizing campaigns. They include pressure and the firing of union activists.
These tactics may not be condoned, but it is very difficult to get Bush's National Labor Relations Board to discourage them.
It is for these reasons that unions are agitating for the "card check."
Sent to Boston Globe
Food Fright
You say in your editorial (Food Fright, May 28th., 2007. A10) that "the pet food companies have suffered devastating losses because of the government's failure to regulate food imports rigorously."
Yes, they have suffered losses but due to their own ineptitude. Any firm that does not rigorously inspect its inputs and its outputs deserves to suffer losses when contaminated inputs end up in their outputs.
I am no enemy of big government but we need to be clear that the main government focus should be on food that directly enters the food chain -- fruit, vegetables, etc. That is food that individuals cannot be expected to monitor for purity. On the other hand, food that goes to processors should be monitored by those processors subject, of course, only to back up, less intensive, inspection by the government.
Of course, as is the case here, if the processors fail in their duty to engage in rigorous inspection then government inspection will have to be increased.
Sent to Boston Globe
Yes, they have suffered losses but due to their own ineptitude. Any firm that does not rigorously inspect its inputs and its outputs deserves to suffer losses when contaminated inputs end up in their outputs.
I am no enemy of big government but we need to be clear that the main government focus should be on food that directly enters the food chain -- fruit, vegetables, etc. That is food that individuals cannot be expected to monitor for purity. On the other hand, food that goes to processors should be monitored by those processors subject, of course, only to back up, less intensive, inspection by the government.
Of course, as is the case here, if the processors fail in their duty to engage in rigorous inspection then government inspection will have to be increased.
Sent to Boston Globe
Creation beliefs and the Al-Qaeda-Iraq link
The story of the Creation Museum (May 27th, 2007. A19) was followed closely by the main part of your story that Republican Presidential candidates were embracing the belief that Iraq and al-Qaeda (A1,A21) were intimately related prior to our invasion of Iraq.
In both cases, I am saddened that people with money and responsibility succumb to beliefs that have no factual basis.
Sent to Boston Globe
In both cases, I am saddened that people with money and responsibility succumb to beliefs that have no factual basis.
Sent to Boston Globe
The Constitution and Gay Marriage
In his letter to the Globe (Letters, May 27th, 2007. D10) Peter Frank says that "legislators are not voting on whether they agree with the marriage amendment. They are merely saying whether they think people have the right to vote on this volatile issue."
"Merely" is not the word to be used in this context. The question is whether the rights of our gay and lesbian neighbors can be abrogated by a vote of the people. I think not. The State constitution is designed to protect the unpopular.
And let us leave religion out of this. We are talking here about the right to a Civil Marriage -- the kind of marriage you get at the courthouse or from a Justice of the Peace, not the kind you get in a church, mosque, or synagogue. The U.S Constitution mandates the separation of Church and State. It should be applied rigorously in this case.
Our legislators should not vote on the basis of their religious beliefs. They should not vote in favor of the amendment because the Archbishop told them to, or their Minister told them to, or even because their constituents told them to. The members of the legislature should vote unanimously against this amendment because it has the potential to deprive some of our fellow citizens of their civil rights.
Sent to Boston Globe
"Merely" is not the word to be used in this context. The question is whether the rights of our gay and lesbian neighbors can be abrogated by a vote of the people. I think not. The State constitution is designed to protect the unpopular.
And let us leave religion out of this. We are talking here about the right to a Civil Marriage -- the kind of marriage you get at the courthouse or from a Justice of the Peace, not the kind you get in a church, mosque, or synagogue. The U.S Constitution mandates the separation of Church and State. It should be applied rigorously in this case.
Our legislators should not vote on the basis of their religious beliefs. They should not vote in favor of the amendment because the Archbishop told them to, or their Minister told them to, or even because their constituents told them to. The members of the legislature should vote unanimously against this amendment because it has the potential to deprive some of our fellow citizens of their civil rights.
Sent to Boston Globe
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Organization Theorists on the War Czar (long post)
The War Czar: An Organizational Perspective
This represents views of half a dozen organization theorists on the recent appointment of General Lute in response to this query.
[Recently] the White House announced the appointment of a War Czar. Lt-General Lute is to serve in this important integrating role. He will report directly to the President, but he will be ranked as a Deputy National Security Advisor.
Imagine you are a member of the President's Board of Organizational and Leadership Advisors (a body that does not yet exist, but let us imagine that it does). The President has belatedly (that is after making the decision) called on you for your advice as to whether this makes sense organizationally.
Please consider the pro's and con's of the appointment and its position and give your advice as to whether this is sensible or whether alternative arrangements should have been made.
Please reply to me on or off list and I will post the results of this inquiry later.
The responses can useful be categorized using Bolman and Deal's categories of structure, human resources/interpersonal, political, and symbolic.
Respondents are numbered in the order of receipt.
- Structural
- Respondent #2:
I am not sure I have enough information about the position to provide a clear response. On the face of it, War Czar makes no sense to me whatsoever. The president is CINC, period. His senior military advisors are the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but he's the decider and he cannot give away that final responsibility with abdication. His National Security Advisor function is broader than just military and is good input to him, but War Czar? The SECDEF is the 'War Czar' if there is such a thing. It did used to be a War Department at one time. So, I am quite unclear what this War Czar is going to integrate. The system with a non-line set of military advisors in the Joint Chiefs, a line responsibility through the SECDEF to the War Lords (4-star combat commanders), and a staff function in the White House itself of National Security Advisor seems appropriately dispursed and balanced. - Respondent #4:
First, let me say that I view an organizational structure as a command and control network, which filters information on the way up the structure and expands information on the way down the structure. I like the horizontal organization structure, but realize that there are limits on the number of relationships a person can manage. Effectively, we are pre-wired to manage approximately 150-200 relationships (span of control) (R.I.M Dunbar, "Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates," Journal of Human Evolution(1992), vol. 20, pp. 469-493).
Now for my analysis of your question:
From an organizational viewpoint, I see a minimum of 21 standard direct reports (information streams - the cabinet & cabinet ranking members) to the U.S. president. This does not count the NSA, the leader of the intelligence Org, who does a daily briefing, or other special study groups. Therefore, we can conclude that there are 21+ channels of organizational filtered information flowing to the president (the decision maker). The span of control is higher than a typical business, but should be reasonable given the number of relationships that a human can handle. Therefore, adding another direct report should NOT be an issue.
This organizational structure (chain of command) establishes priorities on the information flowing through each channel. In other words, some of the information, which may be important in understanding the overall picture, is filtered as it moves up through the organization. To resolve the filtering issue, organizations have historically established alternative paths of communication to the key decision makers for highly important areas of concern. This is accomplished by creating task forces, special studies groups, etc. Therefore, I conclude that if you want to limit organizational filtering of information, then an alternative channel of communication must be established, which bypasses the standard organizational structure. Therefore, if the objective is to reduce/limit the filtering of information on the war(s), then an appointment of a “War Czar” (Most likely a media label) or a Deputy National Security Advisor is an appropriate action to take. - Respondent #5 (repeated under Human Resources):
I'm generally disinclined to recommend solving a problem by adding an "overlay" role or organization (e.g., DNI, DHS, NCTC, and now the czar) to provide coordination of units that are not working well together. Better, in my view, to work on the relation (especially the interdependence) of the constituent organizations. - Respondent #6 (aka Martin Evans)
I am ambivalent about the appointment of a war czar.
On the one hand, it is an indicator that the Bush administration must be finally getting serious about negotiations. When the sole branch of our strategy in Iraq was a military one, the need for integration between the Pentagon and the State department was minimal. The appointment of a coordinator means that the need for integration between the two departments has increased. This means that the administration is about to engage in diplomacy as well as military action. This is a very good thing.
However, as an organization theorist, I do not think that the appointment of a single individual to the role is sufficient. The problems and activities to be coordinated are enormously complex, so the coordinating mechanism also needs to be complex. What is needed is a War Cabinet made up of senior officials from Defense and State which meets on an ongoing basis to set policy and monitor its implementation. Then we would have a chance of coordinating happening in a timely fashion.
A single individual, especially one with dual reporting relations (to the President and the National Security Advisor) isn't going to be able to get his hands on the necessary levers of power.
- Respondent #2:
- Human Resource/Interpersonal
- Respondent #1
My reaction in that situation would depend on the President's participation practices - his batting average in selecting the most appropriate level of authority for participants - and the extent to which he has established trust with his reports. Tannenbaum and Schmidt popularized a range of participation levels depending on several factors. (The situation you describe is within this range) Victor Vroom and his team refined that range with specific suggestions. However, neither considered the characteristics of the people called on to participate in a decision (see Norman Maier and Blake and Mouton).
So, to give you firmly specific, unambiguous, response - it all depends. (Don't ask for my opinion on the existing situation). - Respondent #5 (repeated under Structure):
I'm generally disinclined to recommend solving a problem by adding an "overlay" role or organization (e.g., DNI, DHS, NCTC, and now the czar) to provide coordination of units that are not working well together. Better, in my view, to work on the relation (especially the interdependence) of the constituent organizations.
- Respondent #1
- Political
- Respondent #6 (aka Martin Evans)
The appointment gives political cover to the President as it now appears that he is doing something new and different.
- Respondent #6 (aka Martin Evans)
- Symbolic
- Respondent#3:
First, the appointment title War Czar I feel should be changed or removed as
it leads to confusion for example he is ranked as Deputy National Security
Advisor, why is the appointment not made under that title?
The War Czar from a layman's perspective sounds very aggressive and Russian
so not very American.The focus should be on resolving global issues diplomatically and hence the title War Czar gives the impression of planning wars in advance. War is the last tool available in any crisis and only to be used as a means of defence. The cost of War as our great nations and people know is paid in highest by our service people who lay down their lives for the freedoms we enjoy. The service people's friends and
families pay the rest of their lives by not having loved ones return.
How about a new title of Deputy National Security Advisor on Global Peace initiatives. It is argued without understanding both the global issues and the fears for national security by a home nation the advisor cannot really advise. The latter comment then requires both a military mind and that of a economist mind. Does Lt-General Lute have both or at least a team of economic or business minded people to help serve both his role and ultimately that of the President.
To conclude then the President would be ill advised using this title and no one who cared for him and the people of America and the world would recommend this. Personally I would push for the suggested title even if it cost me my job, which at present I do not have as I'm a mere student be it a middle aged one catching up.
- Respondent#3:
There it is: some of us dislike the symbolism of the title, some think it structurally appropriate, others do not, yet others think "it all depends."
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Mike Capuano in the Revolving Door
I was horrified to read that Congressman Capuano opposes the extension of the "revolving door" provision from 1 year to 2. We need to increase that gap so that former congressmen do not retain a strong set of contacts to engage in undue and improper influence with their colleagues.
We cannot accept his assertion that his political career is solely designed to improve his post-House earnings.
The electors of the 8th District of Massachusetts sent Congressman Capuano to Washington to do his best for our country, our state, and our district -- not what is best for Mike Capuano.
Sent to New York Times
We cannot accept his assertion that his political career is solely designed to improve his post-House earnings.
The electors of the 8th District of Massachusetts sent Congressman Capuano to Washington to do his best for our country, our state, and our district -- not what is best for Mike Capuano.
Sent to New York Times
The paper trail
Your correspondent, Dennis McFeely (Letters, May 21, 2007 A20) is right to be suspicious of the American electoral system with its partisan officials, partisan redistricting, and partisan excesses in fundraising.
The alarm he raises about the fraudulent paper trail is is a false one. Yes, as he says "a computer can easily be programmed ... to accept a vote for candidate A, give the vote to Candidate B, and print a vote on the paper trail for Candidate A," but such a result will not survive an audit. The point of the paper trail is to permit auditing of the result and allow recounting of the vote. The improper programming would easily be detected.
Sent to New York Times
The alarm he raises about the fraudulent paper trail is is a false one. Yes, as he says "a computer can easily be programmed ... to accept a vote for candidate A, give the vote to Candidate B, and print a vote on the paper trail for Candidate A," but such a result will not survive an audit. The point of the paper trail is to permit auditing of the result and allow recounting of the vote. The improper programming would easily be detected.
Sent to New York Times
Drug Firms and Doctors
Your op-ed writer, Scott Lassman (Does a drug firm's free lunch influence doctors? Boston Globe, May 18, 2007, A15), is correct: it is all about trust.
The problem is that major players in the industry have, over the years, violated that trust (Thalidomide, Vioxx). As a result, most of us are not willing to give the drug companies the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps if the major firms resolved to begin rebuilding that trust by stopping direct advertising to the general public (Talk to your Doctor about .....) then we would be less suspicious about those free lunches.
How about it?
Sent to Boston Globe
The problem is that major players in the industry have, over the years, violated that trust (Thalidomide, Vioxx). As a result, most of us are not willing to give the drug companies the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps if the major firms resolved to begin rebuilding that trust by stopping direct advertising to the general public (Talk to your Doctor about .....) then we would be less suspicious about those free lunches.
How about it?
Sent to Boston Globe
AG: No hands on leader, he
Every CEO in America knows that one of her most important tasks is making sure that the senior managers reporting to her are of the highest caliber. This is not something that is delegated to subordinates.
Mr Gonzales does not seem to know this (Gonzales says he followed deputy's advice on firings, Boston Globe, March 16th., 2007, A4).
For this reason alone, he is unsuited to serve as the top official in the Justice Department.
Sent to Boston Globe
Mr Gonzales does not seem to know this (Gonzales says he followed deputy's advice on firings, Boston Globe, March 16th., 2007, A4).
For this reason alone, he is unsuited to serve as the top official in the Justice Department.
Sent to Boston Globe
The War Czar
The appointment of Lt-General Douglas Lute (New York Times, please add full cite). is a good sign.
It is an indicator that the Bush administration must be finally getting serious about negotiations. When the sole branch of our strategy in Iraq was a military one, the need for integration between the Pentagon and the State department was minimal.
The appointment of a coordinator means that the need for integration between the two departments has increased. This means that the administration is about to engage in diplomacy as well as military action.
What a good idea!
I hope that this will lead to a successful outcome.
Sent to the New York Times
It is an indicator that the Bush administration must be finally getting serious about negotiations. When the sole branch of our strategy in Iraq was a military one, the need for integration between the Pentagon and the State department was minimal.
The appointment of a coordinator means that the need for integration between the two departments has increased. This means that the administration is about to engage in diplomacy as well as military action.
What a good idea!
I hope that this will lead to a successful outcome.
Sent to the New York Times
Saturday, May 12, 2007
The Commander Guy
What a pathetic comment by our president.
He has placed hundreds of thousands of our troops in harm's way. He has run a failing war and a government that is breathtaking in its incompetence. Yet he still demands deference from us because he is "the commander guy."
Well, he is a guy in one sense of the term -- one who deserves ridicule.
But his continuation in office is a tragedy. He and the Vice-President should step down.
Sent to the Boston Globe
He has placed hundreds of thousands of our troops in harm's way. He has run a failing war and a government that is breathtaking in its incompetence. Yet he still demands deference from us because he is "the commander guy."
Well, he is a guy in one sense of the term -- one who deserves ridicule.
But his continuation in office is a tragedy. He and the Vice-President should step down.
Sent to the Boston Globe
Bush Fumbles Iran
After reading Mr Kristof's column (Diplomacy at its worst, New York Times Week in Review, April 29, 2007, page 13), I too "ache for my country."
We should also remember that the Bush Administration had a second chance at rapprochement with Iran when in May 2006, the President of Iran sent a letter full of philosophizing to President Bush. The approach was rebuffed by Secretary Rice who said "There is nothing concrete here."
Maybe not in the letter's content, but the very concrete existence of the letter suggested that some faction in Iraq was interested in pursuing a dialog with the United States despite being rebuffed in 2003.
One would have hoped that Secretary Rice, a Soviet expert, would have drawn the lesson from the Cuban Missile crisis that it was useful to reinforce the doveish elements and ignore the hawkish elements among our adversaries.
It would have been useful to engage in further discussions with Iran. Why did the administration fail to do so?
Sent to New York Times
We should also remember that the Bush Administration had a second chance at rapprochement with Iran when in May 2006, the President of Iran sent a letter full of philosophizing to President Bush. The approach was rebuffed by Secretary Rice who said "There is nothing concrete here."
Maybe not in the letter's content, but the very concrete existence of the letter suggested that some faction in Iraq was interested in pursuing a dialog with the United States despite being rebuffed in 2003.
One would have hoped that Secretary Rice, a Soviet expert, would have drawn the lesson from the Cuban Missile crisis that it was useful to reinforce the doveish elements and ignore the hawkish elements among our adversaries.
It would have been useful to engage in further discussions with Iran. Why did the administration fail to do so?
Sent to New York Times
Monday, April 30, 2007
Health of Congress: Conference Committees
I believe that another indicator of the health of Congress ( Is Congress on the Mend, New York Times, April 28, 2007, page: A 27) is the composition of conference committees.
My understanding is that in the previous congress, especially on the House side, the inclusion of Democrats in Conference Committees was at a minimum. What has happened after the Democratic takeover. Are Republicans well represented or are Democrats playing the "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" game?
Sent to New York Times
My understanding is that in the previous congress, especially on the House side, the inclusion of Democrats in Conference Committees was at a minimum. What has happened after the Democratic takeover. Are Republicans well represented or are Democrats playing the "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" game?
Sent to New York Times
Lawyers' Access
Today's headline, US Asks Court to Limit Lawyers Access at Guantanamo (New York Times, April 26, 2007, A1, A20), underscores the urgency for repeal of that section of the Patriot act which removed the right of Habeas Corpus from the detainees.
Congress should act immediately before this administration further sullies America's good name and gives more fuel to those who wish our country ill. The current administration's ill advised forays into legal territory have seen the abrogation of our responsibilities under international law (the torture memoranda, the Geneva Convention) as well as bringing the administration of justice into disrepute domestically (the politicization of the role of US attorneys).
At least Congress should and can act in a timely fashion on Habeas Corpus.
Sent to the New York Times
Congress should act immediately before this administration further sullies America's good name and gives more fuel to those who wish our country ill. The current administration's ill advised forays into legal territory have seen the abrogation of our responsibilities under international law (the torture memoranda, the Geneva Convention) as well as bringing the administration of justice into disrepute domestically (the politicization of the role of US attorneys).
At least Congress should and can act in a timely fashion on Habeas Corpus.
Sent to the New York Times
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Supplemental Appropriations
There is much soul searching in the Press about who will be responsible if the Supplemental Appropriations Bill for Iraq fails to go into law (A Hostage Situation, New York Times, April 23, 2007, p: A21). Will it be the fault of the President who vetoed it; or will it be the fault of the legislators who insisted on placing deadlines for troop withdrawal in the Bill.
The answer is clear: the President will be responsible. As Nancy F. Kaplan wrote in your pages on March 30th (Letters to the Editor), When a Bill contains provisions that the President objects to, whether by whim or on constitutional grounds, he usually issues a signing statement that he will not abide by this or that part of the Bill. It seems to me that, on constitutional grounds (he is, alas, the only commander in Chief that we have), the President could legitimately issue a signing statement that he will not be bound by a timetable as this reduces his flexibility as Commander in Chief.
So why doesn't he just sign the bill and issue a signing statement? Why is he putting the funding of our, and his, troops in jeopardy?
By the way it is the responsibility of the media to hold the President accountable if he vetoes that Bill. It is he that is jeopardizing funding, not the Congress. The media must make sure that in this instance, perception matches reality.
Sent to New York Times
The answer is clear: the President will be responsible. As Nancy F. Kaplan wrote in your pages on March 30th (Letters to the Editor), When a Bill contains provisions that the President objects to, whether by whim or on constitutional grounds, he usually issues a signing statement that he will not abide by this or that part of the Bill. It seems to me that, on constitutional grounds (he is, alas, the only commander in Chief that we have), the President could legitimately issue a signing statement that he will not be bound by a timetable as this reduces his flexibility as Commander in Chief.
So why doesn't he just sign the bill and issue a signing statement? Why is he putting the funding of our, and his, troops in jeopardy?
By the way it is the responsibility of the media to hold the President accountable if he vetoes that Bill. It is he that is jeopardizing funding, not the Congress. The media must make sure that in this instance, perception matches reality.
Sent to New York Times
Massachusetts' Prisons
I agree with Scott Harshbarger: the State does not need another "blue-ribbon commission" to look into the problems of our prisons (State orders review over prison errors, Boston Globe, April 23, 2007, pp:A1, B3). His commission undertook a sweeping review two years ago. Most of its recommendations sit on the shelf.
The Patrick administration is avoiding the issue by proposing a new commission. It knows what the problems are. If it does not, it had no business asking the previous commissioner to leave her post.
The solutions to those problems are found in the report of the Harshbarger commission. The Patrick administration must take the tough decisions to implement those solutions.
Sent to Boston Globe
The Patrick administration is avoiding the issue by proposing a new commission. It knows what the problems are. If it does not, it had no business asking the previous commissioner to leave her post.
The solutions to those problems are found in the report of the Harshbarger commission. The Patrick administration must take the tough decisions to implement those solutions.
Sent to Boston Globe
Helpful Iraqis Abandoned
Kirk Johnson is absolutely right (Hounded by Insurgents, abandoned by Us, New York Times, Wednesday, April 18, 2007). We must act expeditiously to help those Iraqis who helped us in the aftermath of the invasion. Our failure to do so imperils our current ability to win any other Iraqis to our side. No wonder the insurgency is blooming.
Alas, he places his trust in a weak reed. President Bush has, in the past few years, failed every test of leadership that he has confronted: the war, Katrina, Guantanamo, civil rights at home, stem cell research. In every case, his policies have been too little, too late.
In addition, with a few notable exceptions, he has filled the bureaucracy with ideologically sound placeholders rather than with experts. It is because of this that the bureaucracy runs so slowly, the placeholders aren't competent to make the kinds of decision that would enable them to really differentiate friend from foe and therefore be able to extend a helping hand to those sad Iraqis who cast in their lot with the United States.
Sent to New York Times
Alas, he places his trust in a weak reed. President Bush has, in the past few years, failed every test of leadership that he has confronted: the war, Katrina, Guantanamo, civil rights at home, stem cell research. In every case, his policies have been too little, too late.
In addition, with a few notable exceptions, he has filled the bureaucracy with ideologically sound placeholders rather than with experts. It is because of this that the bureaucracy runs so slowly, the placeholders aren't competent to make the kinds of decision that would enable them to really differentiate friend from foe and therefore be able to extend a helping hand to those sad Iraqis who cast in their lot with the United States.
Sent to New York Times
Monday, April 16, 2007
Wolfowitz Entitlements
I am appalled at the $60,000 pay raise that World Bank President Wolfowitz gave to his girlfriend (Patronage flap roils World Bank, Boston Globe, April 13, 2007).
He seems to have little or no sense of proportion. According to Oxfam, over a billion people live on less than a dollar a day. That sixty thousand dollars could have had a big impact on a small fraction of those people.
He seems to have little or no sense of proportion. According to Oxfam, over a billion people live on less than a dollar a day. That sixty thousand dollars could have had a big impact on a small fraction of those people.
Sent to Boston Globe
Off shore sourcing
As we move more and more jobs off-shore, the US is repeating the "tragedy of the commons.' What is rational and sensible for a single firm in order to reduce costs, is a mistake for the Country as a whole. In macro-economic terms, if too many people in the US lose (or are afraid of losing) their jobs, who will be available to purchase the (cheaper) products of the companies?
It is also important to realize, that the full expected benefits of off-shore sourcing are rarely realized. That is because the managerial costs increase. Managing an off-shore operation is more difficult than managing a domestic operation so that additional (expensive) managerial resources have to be allocated to the task of coordinating offshore and domestic activities.
There are some alternatives to reducing costs other than off-shore sourcing:
1. Share the cuts across the organization. Rather than transferirrg 10% of the jobs overseas, all members of the organization (including top manages) can take a 10% cut in both hours of work and pay. This keeps the jobs on-shore but they are less well paid.
2. Develop a new compensation system: a base salary coupled with a bonus based upon profitability and exceeding performance standards. If the bonus in the most profitable year is about 20% to 25% of base salary, then in years that the firm is not profitable, a major cost saving can be achieved without layoff. This tactic requires a proactive stance by the organization. The new compensation scheme has the best chance of adoption when the firm is fairly profitable, not when cost reductions are imminent. This scheme may also reduce the large gap between top management and employee compensation.
Following on from this, with top management income at about 350 times that of the average employee, an awful lot of people could be hired with no loss profitability if that gap was reduced to the standards of the 1960's.
Sent to On Point, WBUR
It is also important to realize, that the full expected benefits of off-shore sourcing are rarely realized. That is because the managerial costs increase. Managing an off-shore operation is more difficult than managing a domestic operation so that additional (expensive) managerial resources have to be allocated to the task of coordinating offshore and domestic activities.
There are some alternatives to reducing costs other than off-shore sourcing:
1. Share the cuts across the organization. Rather than transferirrg 10% of the jobs overseas, all members of the organization (including top manages) can take a 10% cut in both hours of work and pay. This keeps the jobs on-shore but they are less well paid.
2. Develop a new compensation system: a base salary coupled with a bonus based upon profitability and exceeding performance standards. If the bonus in the most profitable year is about 20% to 25% of base salary, then in years that the firm is not profitable, a major cost saving can be achieved without layoff. This tactic requires a proactive stance by the organization. The new compensation scheme has the best chance of adoption when the firm is fairly profitable, not when cost reductions are imminent. This scheme may also reduce the large gap between top management and employee compensation.
Following on from this, with top management income at about 350 times that of the average employee, an awful lot of people could be hired with no loss profitability if that gap was reduced to the standards of the 1960's.
Sent to On Point, WBUR
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Regent University
Your article on Regent University (Scandal puts spotlight on Christian law school, Boston Globe, April 8, 2007) had a nasty whiff of credentialism about it.
To attack the competence of Monica Goodling because she graduated from a law school class from which only 40% passed the bar examinations at their first attempt is to taint her with guilt by association. Even in such a class, a handful of excellent lawyers could emerge.
If you want to attack her competence, you must do so through a careful evaluation of her actions and decisions, not because her law school colleagues were less than mediocre.
Sent to Boston Globe
To attack the competence of Monica Goodling because she graduated from a law school class from which only 40% passed the bar examinations at their first attempt is to taint her with guilt by association. Even in such a class, a handful of excellent lawyers could emerge.
If you want to attack her competence, you must do so through a careful evaluation of her actions and decisions, not because her law school colleagues were less than mediocre.
Sent to Boston Globe
Monday, April 9, 2007
Costs of War
Thanks to Joseph Kearns Goodwin for reminding us about how few are making sacrifices in the Iraq war (Unmobilized for war, Boston Globe, Friday, April 6, 2007). And for calling on us to change our ways and to take seriously our role in supporting the troops.
The most immediate and practical thing we can do is to start paying for the war. It is not enough to pile deficit upon deficit. That way our children -- those currently fighting the war -- will have to pay for it too. That is unacceptable. Those of us on the home front -- what an archaic sounding term that is -- have to pick up the cost. It is time that we shared in our soldiers' sacrifices and put up the money for the war. Over four years of war, this administration has made no effort to get our participation. No campaigns to sell war bonds so the debt will at least be US owned, no attempt to raise taxes, though that would be a prudent response, nor any attempt to do what the British did in World War II where forced loans -- called post war credits were imposed on taxpayers. These loans were credited with a modest rate of interest and were, in fact, not redeemed until the lender retired. This last model might help with the retirement crisis that is going to hit in less than twenty years time.
Whichever route is chosen, it is time for the American people to support the troops in a meaningful way -- by paying for the war.
Sent to Boston Globe
The most immediate and practical thing we can do is to start paying for the war. It is not enough to pile deficit upon deficit. That way our children -- those currently fighting the war -- will have to pay for it too. That is unacceptable. Those of us on the home front -- what an archaic sounding term that is -- have to pick up the cost. It is time that we shared in our soldiers' sacrifices and put up the money for the war. Over four years of war, this administration has made no effort to get our participation. No campaigns to sell war bonds so the debt will at least be US owned, no attempt to raise taxes, though that would be a prudent response, nor any attempt to do what the British did in World War II where forced loans -- called post war credits were imposed on taxpayers. These loans were credited with a modest rate of interest and were, in fact, not redeemed until the lender retired. This last model might help with the retirement crisis that is going to hit in less than twenty years time.
Whichever route is chosen, it is time for the American people to support the troops in a meaningful way -- by paying for the war.
Sent to Boston Globe
Board of the American Repertory Theater
The American Repertory Theater seems to have a very dysfunctional Board.
First they should have taken a leaf out of Deval Patrick's book and
accepted Kerry Healey on the board, saying with him, "Lieutenant
Governor you are better than your campaign."
Second the information about Healey's blackballing should never have
been leaked to the press.
Who would consider joining a board where such a risk existed.
Sent to Boston Globe
First they should have taken a leaf out of Deval Patrick's book and
accepted Kerry Healey on the board, saying with him, "Lieutenant
Governor you are better than your campaign."
Second the information about Healey's blackballing should never have
been leaked to the press.
Who would consider joining a board where such a risk existed.
Sent to Boston Globe
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Resolute
Jeff Jacoby (Boston Globe, April 1, 2007) is absolutely wrong.
We who oppose the Iraq war are not irresolute. We are resolute and we are convinced that the current policy is making things much worse both for Iraq and for America in the war against terror.
As one who supported the Afghan war but opposed the Iraq war, the commitment of resources to Afghanistan and the commitment of energy and what remains of our limited prestige to securing a Palestinian Israeli peace settlement would do more to defeat the terrorists than the current surge in Iraq.
Sent to Boston Globe
We who oppose the Iraq war are not irresolute. We are resolute and we are convinced that the current policy is making things much worse both for Iraq and for America in the war against terror.
As one who supported the Afghan war but opposed the Iraq war, the commitment of resources to Afghanistan and the commitment of energy and what remains of our limited prestige to securing a Palestinian Israeli peace settlement would do more to defeat the terrorists than the current surge in Iraq.
Sent to Boston Globe
Yes, I believe in Government
Michael Tanner has it wrong (Letters, Divining the Future of the G.O.P., New York Times, March 31, 2007. Page A26). I believe that an effective government could have dealt effectively with "Hurricane Katrina, the Walter Reed Mess, and potential Social Security and Medicare bankruptcy.
To do so, it would have had to have managers who were competent rather than the ideologically compatible placeholder that the Bush Administration has appointed in agency after agency. Did Mr Tanner know that under President Clinton, FEMA was acknowledged to be a highly effective agency - because it was run by disaster-relief experts.
To be effective in dealing with these crises, the government would also have needed financial resources which have been sorely diminished by the Bush tax cuts and by the diversion of funds and energies to the Iraq war.
I am sure that sensible solutions can be found for the Social Security and Medicare problems. But they will have to be collective solutions (based on insurance) not the privatized accounts for retirement and health care proposed by the current administration.
Sent to the New York Times
To do so, it would have had to have managers who were competent rather than the ideologically compatible placeholder that the Bush Administration has appointed in agency after agency. Did Mr Tanner know that under President Clinton, FEMA was acknowledged to be a highly effective agency - because it was run by disaster-relief experts.
To be effective in dealing with these crises, the government would also have needed financial resources which have been sorely diminished by the Bush tax cuts and by the diversion of funds and energies to the Iraq war.
I am sure that sensible solutions can be found for the Social Security and Medicare problems. But they will have to be collective solutions (based on insurance) not the privatized accounts for retirement and health care proposed by the current administration.
Sent to the New York Times
Leadership
One of the important things that a top manager does in an organization is to ensure that the senior ranks are staffed by competent and committed people.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales seems, by his own admission (Gonzales Defends His Role in Firings, New York Times), curiously detached from the process of replacing U.S. Attorneys in key Federal Judicial Districts.
If this is the case then he has abdicated one of his most important managerial responsibilities and is unfit to serve for a day longer. Of course, if he is lying about his role he is also unfit to serve.
Sent to New York Times
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales seems, by his own admission (Gonzales Defends His Role in Firings, New York Times), curiously detached from the process of replacing U.S. Attorneys in key Federal Judicial Districts.
If this is the case then he has abdicated one of his most important managerial responsibilities and is unfit to serve for a day longer. Of course, if he is lying about his role he is also unfit to serve.
Sent to New York Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)