Lieberman v. Bucy

“If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”

-- U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman on his opponent as reported in The New York Times

“The plot to blow up a dozen passenger planes is only the latest evidence that our presence in Iraq has done nothing to affect the plans and aims of terrorists. The orderly pullout proposed by Ned Lamont won’t either.”

-- Bill Bucy as reported on billbucy.blogspot.com

Bad, Floyd, Bad

Dear Floyd Landis:
As you know, I was most supportive of your quest to win th Tour de France, lauded your bravery in the face of dsiability, and even praised your humble first name as a symbol of solid American values.

Now I find you're a juicer. You pumped your skinny butt full of testosterone to win the race and disappointed tens of thousands of people who supported you. We now see you as a fake, a liar and a scam artist. All the while we followed you and the race you were lying to us. And for nothing more than to boost your ego and put some bucks in your pocket.

Floyd, I hope you end up selling used buggies to the nice Mennonite people with whom you grew up in Farmersville. Not that you'll be very successful. After all, why should they trust anything you say?

The next time you get on a bike, please remove the seat first.

An Ethics Quiz for Everyone

An American newspaper reporter and an American photographer join an Iraqi insurgent patrol to report from the rebels' perspective.

As the patrol hikes along the rim of a small ravine, the leader signals to take cover. Just below, 20 U.S. Marines are entering the draw. It's the perfect place for an ambush. Unless the Marines are warned, they face certain death.

What is the reporter's ethical duty in this situation?

Go, Floyd, Go

I like Floyd Landis’ chances of winning the Tour de France.

Even more, I favor the idea of a guy named Floyd winning a major sports event.

There aren't a lot of Floyds around today. According to aboutnames.ch Floyd is the 798^th most popular male name in the United States. It seems to have derived from Old French and means “someone who lives near the forest” or in Old English, “the hollow.”

That makes sense to me. The name Floyd comfortably references a mid-20^th Century rural or working class life and raises memories of humorous characters from old TV shows. Remember Floyd the barber on Mayberry RFD? Floyd is a name that says down-to-earth. Floyds are supposed to be just regular guys.

And so is Landis. Born to Mennonite parents in Farmersville, Penn., he’s a grinder who worked his way up in the cycling world, by, well, working. In fact he pushed himself so hard he’s already worn out one hip at age 30 and will get it replaced after the Tour concludes. Physicians and competitors are stunned that he can ride at all. Floyd just shrugs and keeps pushing pedals.

Landis’ image as well as his name contrast sharply with former teammate and cycling uber-star Lance Armstrong. (Lance is #232 on the favorite name list.) Glamorous, controversial and with a great comeback story behind him, Armstrong could be named Todd or Tad or Chip and no one would blink. But I’m willing to bet Sheryl Crow would never have told him C'mon, C'mon if he was dubbed Floyd Armstrong.

I don't denigrate Armstrong's achievements when saying I prefer to cheer on Floyd Landis from Farmersville, a regular guy who worked hard and finally is getting the recognition he’s due.

Go, Floyd, go.

Dan Pink on My Job Prospects

I recently interviewed Dan Pink, author of A Whole New Mind and Free Agent Nation, two of the best books available about the fundamental changes occuring in the U.S. workforce. I asked him what skills and people would prosper in the future. Here's part of his response:

Of the five most important psychological traits that distinguish human beings from one another, openness to new experience stands out as the factor that I think defines who will be more inclined to becoming contingents and enjoying it. That also involves tolerance for risk. I think all of us have the capacity somewhere in us and if the context changes enough we end up moving in that direction.

 

My argument is that the left-brain abilities — create-a-spreadsheet and zero-in-on-the-right-answer type of thinking — still matter and are necessary but are no longer sufficient. The abilities that are characteristic of the other side of the brain — artistic, empathetic, inventive — are increasingly becoming first among equals in the world of work both at the level of individual careers and at the level of organizational performance.

 

The reason for that is that some of these left-brain abilities can be done cheaper overseas or faster by computers. For example, about 2 million U.S. tax returns were completed by chartered accountants in India last year and 21 million were completed by individuals using TurboTax software.

At the same time we work in an economy that requires us to deliver not only utility but significance, a sense of meaning or even esthetics. Those forces require people to do something that is hard to outsource and hard to automate and satisfies these other needs of a very abundant age.

(The full interview with Pink will appear in the September issue of Contingent Workforce Strategies magazine.)

Lewis Carroll And The Wall Street Journal

On May 20, 2006, a Wall Street Journal editorial reflected on the government's post-Enron regulatory activities:

"One conclusion is how exceptional those scandals have turned out to be. Far from revealing some larger cultural rot, the corruption was serious but limited to a handful of companies. Prosecutors and regulators used the political opening created by the Enron collapse to hunt for malfeasance far and wide, but the news is how little they found."

On May 27, the newspaper commented on the illegal practice of backdating stock option grants to build in or increase profits for senior executives:

"The number of companies doing this isn't clear, though the SEC is investigating at least 20 and prosecutors have launched criminal probes into a half-dozen...."

Newspapers and Romance

I just read yet another mawkish elegy to daily newspapers which, as usual, blamed the demise of a centuries-old tradition on their owners’ insistence that at least a smudge of black ink show up on the books.

David Carr is the latest in the string,. His piece for the New York Times typifies the lot. He wonders what kind of newspaper his young, talented colleague will find when he returns to the Philadelphia Inquirer from a two-month summer vacation. Carr answers by observation: “While we had our own version of The Conversation, a lucky pigeon in front of us found a lone chip in a foil bag, but it was quickly lost amid a crush of others rushing in for a taste.”

Like the other mourners, Carr conjures up halcyon days when newspapers such as the Inquirer were paragons of a money-be-damned business, “a sprawling enterprise with bureaus all over the world and a sniper’s mentality on the news….” Few newspapers ever operated that way and I hope most journalists reject the image of themselves as people who sneak around and kill in cold blood.

Carr’s piece is the latest in a long string of tales filled with the drama of deadlines, and anecdotes about the revered editor who bucked corrupt officials or the raffish columnist who drank more often than he wrote, all expounded to make themselves feel more important and to impress the uninitiated.

They all reference in some way a belief that newspaper owners have turned their priorities around 180 degrees to favor profits over journalism. Some publishers once placed a higher premium on quality news coverage than they do today, but to contend profits weren’t their overriding concern is naive.

In one way or another, Carr and his fellow mourners all equate the decline of their newspapers with a demise of quality journalism itself. That is not true and only serves to damage their credibility as observers of the world. There are two obvious conclusions to be drawn and newspaper types don’t want to see them.

The first is simple. Newspapers cost a great deal of money to produce. They are labor intensive in all respects, take a long time to manufacture, and must be delivered by hand, one at a time. Electronic media are as inexpensive as a $600 computer and deliver the news instantly (and constantly refreshed) to tens of thousands of people.

The second conclusion is offered by the readers themselves. Newspaper circulation overall is shrinking because people are tired of the medium. By the time they pick up their morning newspaper they have seen and heard far more about the Indonesian earthquake, the primary election results or the verdict in the Enron trial than they can process. And they know about these events from the same sources used by newspapers.

There is nothing to prevent Carr’s young friend from carving out an excellent career in journalism and benefiting society with his trenchant analysis and observations. The young journalist’s work will also be seen and appreciated by far more people and internationally. His output, though, will be expressed in pixels, not ink. And, no, he won’t have to scramble for crumbs, either.

People being people, though, Carr’s friend will eventually conjure up nostalgic sighs about the good old days when “we had to work with laptops that couldn’t send a story faster than 128 KBps upstream and cell phones with only four hours of talk time.” Whether that will be seen as romantic to anyone remains to be seen.

No Democracy in the UK

Whenever the UK is held up as as a democracy, consider this item from the AP that records a decision by an appointed legislative body:

"Britain's House of Lords has rejected a bill to allow doctors to prescribe lethal drug doses to terminally ill patients, reflecting opposition among the public, government and church - to assisted suicide. The vote ends any chance of its passage, as the proposal will not proceed to the lawmaking House of Commons. "

Plagirism Graduate Seminar

The Raytheon Company board today reduced the 2006 compensation package of its chief executive, William H. Swanson, who admitted to lifting portions of his book, "Swanson's Unwritten Rules of Management," from other texts.

New York Times 05/03/06

Unlike the teenage Harvard student who lifted chunks of her novel from others, Bill Swanson hs no hope of redemption.

The only reason for Bill to steal from columnist Dave Barry and other authors is that he thought he was smarter than everyone else, which means he holds everyone who purchased his book in contempt. (See Nov. 21, 2005 post, Email Stupidity.)

Bill said he was sorry. The Raytheon board nicked him for about $1 million yet announced it still had "full confidence" in his abilities. I say bring in the auditors and the Sarbanes-Oxley governance consultants.

Plagiarism 101

Harvard sophomore Kaavya Viswanathan turns out to be a literary kleptomaniac instead of a chick lit version of Joyce Maynard, the last adolescent to make a big splash on the writing scene.

Her publisher has canceled her two-book deal and is building a bonfire out of her offending novel, How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life. The newspaper where she worked as an intern is picking apart her stories. And if anyone at Harvard has common sense (arguable by some people) an overworked grad student is running all of her college essays and term papers through every database known to humankind.

Viswanathan comes from an educated, upscale family that undoubtedly expected great things from her. They signed her $500,000 book deal because she was only 17 when some creature called a "book packager" offered the contract. So, here was a bright, talented kid not only working hard to get into an elite university, but told to sit down, write a novel, and make a lot of money. Which, of course,would help her get into Harvard.

Viswanathan says she's sorry. She says she read all of the copied books several times, so it's possible she unconsciously picked up the language. But she remains baffled about the extent of the plagiarism. She wants to return to Harvard.

Harvard has very active psychological counseling programs, (given the school is full of Kaavyas) so, in return for allowing a confessed plagiarist to return to The Yard, the school should require she make the student health center her her home-away-from-home.

Why? The teen lit darling doesn't realize she's a thief -- as in people who steal from others for personal gain. She not only ripped off the hard work and creativity of other writers, she stole money, including her advance and the bucks it cost her publishers, Little-Brown, to print, distribute, market, recall and destroy her ersatz prose.

And, she seems to think that saying "sorry" makes it all OK and she can now just move on with her life and fulfill her dreams. I, too, am "sorry," Kaavya, but you have become divorced from reality. If pathological denial isn't an accepted mental disease, it should be.

The Workers' Paradise

We should all move to France. Really.

Forget all the cliches about snobbery, the consumption of garden pests and a lack of personal hygiene. Focus on jobs and working conditions.

First, almost as soon as you are hired into a job, you receive legal and social tenure. I’ve checked and that pretty much means you have to murder a co-worker to get fired. Better yet, healthcare is free and you only have to work 35 hours before overtime kicks in. Toss in five weeks off a year to decompress from the pressure at work, retirement at age 55, and France starts to look like a virtual workers’ paradise.

No wonder the whole country is almost literally up in arms about proposed changes to this system. First it was the students who felt dissed because someone raised the idea of delaying their job guarantees until they had been on the payroll for two years. The unions – and pretty much everyone in France belongs to one – are joining in to shut down La Belle France because they figure if the government can get away with changing the rules for young people, they’ll be targeted next.

We’d better hit the road right away, though. If the government buckles under the pressure, there will be maybe zero new jobs created in France for the next half century. And given the demonstrated proclivity of the French for strikes and riots, filling out an application for an existing position could provoke something akin to the revolution that cost a lot of folks their heads.

Get Off My Back Mountain

My ambivalence about whether to see Brokeback Mountain is turning me into a social pariah.

I enjoyed E. Annie Proulx’s short story on which director Ang Lee’s film is based when I read it a few years ago in the New Yorker. She’s a brilliant writer whose sparse prose quickstarts the imagination. I even recommended it to friends. But there was nothing in the story that left me eager to rush to a movie theater to see the screen adaptation.

Now, I am often asked if I have seen the movie. My “No,” usually elicits an expression of horror and the words, “but you have to.”

That’s when the problem starts. Time after time I am told Brokeback Mountain is a certified cultural phenomenon because it is a lushly designed, well-acted movie about two men in love that portrays their relationship as understandalbe (if abhorred in the film’s 1950s America) and in a manner that is accessible to contemporary, mainstream audiences. Really, how could I avoid participation in this seminal filmic event?

Well, I have my reasons and none of them even remotely justify suggestions I might be homophobic, as did one friend.

I've lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for more than 18 years and was far from naive before that. The fact that two good looking macho guys could fall deeply in love is somewhat less than a revelation to me.

Unlike what some people think, the film is hardly a first. There have been a number of widely released films about men in love over the years. Yes, some of them, like Le Cage aux Folles, and its U.S. remake, The Birdcage, portrayed one gay character as the epitome of a drag stereotype. But both of those films portrayed the campy Albin respectfully and humanely. Only someone with a heart of coal could fail to care about Albin's delimma or be amused by his solution.

There is also the fact that Brokeback Mountain is a chick flick. Change one of the sheepherders to a woman and you would have a dramatic version of Same Time Next Year, in which two people married to others meet once a year for a brief affair. It’s Sleepless in Seattle, with a sad ending. It's Casablanca without the context of a war.

I might see Brokeback Mountain someday. And, from what I’ve read about the acting, directing, and cinematography, I might even enjoy it. But if I do attend, it will be because I want to experience a movie, not get my liberal credentials certified.

Rumsfeld: We're Losing the War on Terror

WASHINGTON — America has made progress in the War on Terror, but the threat today may be greater than ever before because the available weapons are far more dangerous, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday.

"The enemy — while weakened and under pressure — is still capable of global reach, and still possesses the determination to kill more Americans — and to do so with the world's most dangerous weapons," Rumsfeld said in remarks prepared for delivery at the National Press Club.
(FOX NEWS)

Dear Rummy,
As much as it pains me to say this, I fear you went a bit over the top in your National Press Club speech today.

You see, my friend, pretty much everyone has known for years the terror boys would love to get their hands on nukes, germs or whatever. You mentioned this several times when citing the spread of WMDs as a justification for our nation's visit to Iraq. As you'll remember, we were unable to find any of those nasties so to raise the topic again might invite questions about your credibility.

(I loved the way you stopped just short of saying the bad guys actually had WMDs stashed inside their dish-dashes. Masterful rhetoric.)

I understand the purpose of your address to the nattering nabobs of negativism was intended to shore up support for the president's policies and actions. But to this friendly observer your comments could also have led the unlettered masses to believe we're losing the war on terror.

Take this for what you will, my friend, but I just wanted you to know some of us are still paying attentionn to what you say.

Bill

My Judicial Qualifications

Sam Alito is fully qualified to sit as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. So am I. So is my 80-year-old mother. So is the President of France.

I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

My confidence on this matter is absolute because neither the U.S. Constitution or federal law spells out a single criterion that a candidate must meet to join the eight other folks on the big bench. Zip.

Yes, a sitting president must nominate someone and at least 51 senators must approve. But that's process and says nothing about the nominee's suitability to make big judgments on big issues.

With this in mind, I want everyone to know that I'm ready -- eager, even -- to step onto the bench with Clarence, Ruthie, Dave and the rest of the gang. In anticipation of achieving my goal I have drafted the text of a statement by the second President Clinton announcing my nomination:

"Today, I am sending the Senate a message nominating Bill Bucy to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the impeachment of former Justice Antonin Scalia.

"That Mr. Bucy lives fully qualifies him for this job under the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Bolstering his credentials is the welcome fact Mr. Bucy has never attended law school, worked as a lawyer or worn the black robes of a judge.

"While Mr. Bucy's lack of technical expertise will require intense on-the-job training, I believe his learning curve will be steep. Besides, the clerks make all the decisions and write the opinions, anyway.

"Given that Democrats hold a solid majority in the Senate and most of them owe me big time, I anticipate prompt hearings and a swift confirmation.

"It's customary at this point to ask the nominee to make a few remarks. However, Mr. Bucy has extended his stay in rehab to ensure he has a clear head for the upcoming court term."

"As you might imagine, I won't be taking questions."

Thanks for the First Amendment

Let us give thanks for the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment is the foundation of the planet’s longest-lasting constitutional democracy. Within specific limits drawn over centuries, we can argue that the president is the spawn of Satan, worship toads, or publicly declare our support or condemnation of having sex with children.

The First Amendment protects the expression of ideas that might not sit all that well with the powers to be, whether governmental or as reflected in society. This once allowed a group of Nazis to march through Skokie, Ill, a largely Jewish community. It also allows anyone to advocate the violent overthrow of the government.

This virtually unbridled freedom is unique in the world. That it enables promulgation of ideas and words and pictures that almost anyone would find repugnant is a small price to pay for protection against the greatest tool of political repression: censorship of ideas. As has been made clear by centuries of experience, democracy cannot exist when people are denied the right to exchange ideas and openly argue their worth.

These principles are held so fundamental they are inculcated almost as soon a child can read and write. But they are ignored or even scoffed at by many sophisticated Western nations, our nation’s political and cultural allies.

This was clearly illustrated earlier this week when the British government warned news organizations they would be breaking the law if they publish details of a leaked document said to disclose President Bush wanted to bomb Arabic television station Al Jazeera. First published in the Daily Mirror newspaper, the document went on to say that Bush withdrew his idea only at the insistence of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

A former parliamentary aide and a civil servant were charged with a violation of Britain’s Official Secrets Acts, specifically a ``damaging disclosure of a document relating to international relations.'' Thus, David Keogh and Leo O’Connor could go to prison for distributing a document that would do no more harm than cause embarrassment for the American president.

The Official Secrets Acts were first passed in 1911 so they are not a reaction to modern terrorism in an Internet age. They also allow the government to ban the news media from publishing stories the government deems not in its interests -- something called prior restraint, which cannot occur in the U.S. Great Britain has no written constitution, let alone a codified bill of rights. And one of its national legislative chambers is called the House of Lords, none of whose members are elected by the people they govern and have broad veto powers.

In the U.S., governments of both major political parties have sought to limit public scrutiny of their workings or their documents. But the First Amendment also allows citizens to seek redress in the courts and refer to that amendment as the reason they seek openness from those who govern them. Time and again the courts have ruled that the Constitution sets transparency as the default judgment in such cases.

Even when a political administration invokes the principle of “executive privilege” to keep private records of conversations such as those at issue in the UK case, it must justify its decision to a judge. And there is no law preventing an administration from releasing such documents.

At a time of year when we are supposed to reflect and give thanks for what enriches us, it is appropriate to be grateful for the fundamental freedoms given to us by the drafters of the First Amendment and to the elected officials who endorsed it. Without it the democracy we enjoy would not exist.

Email Stupidity

Washington super-lobbyist Michael Scanlon has pleaded guilty to charges he conspired to defraud Indian tribes of more than $19 million.

Why did he not take his case to trial? Probably because of a series of emails to partner Jack Abramoff in which he expressed boundless glee at pulling off his scam."I want all their money!!!" he declared in one. "Weeez gonna be rich!!!" read another.

Despite the number of big timers currently dressed in brightly colored prison jumpsuits because of a poor email decision, people continue to archive their felonious feelings as bits and bytes on some anonymous computer. Why?

First is hubris. Every one of them believes their scam is so impenetrable that there's no reason for discretion. Aren't they smarter than some $60,000-a-year FBI agent or assistant U.S. Attorney? The answer usually comes to them as a pistol-packing civil servant grabs their arm and guides them through a perp walk.

Sometimes they actually believe it's perfectly OK to bribe, steal and cheat so they don't care what they write. Many criminal defense attorneys prefer representing professional killers to working with white-collar crooks because they are tired of hearing: "Everybody does it. Why are they picking on me?"

A prosecutor once told me, "If it wasn't for snitches and the generally stupid behavior of crooks I'd be out of work." He might want to add 'email trails' to the list. Or is that part of the stupidity factor?

Desperate Tactics

Conservative Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., stood before microphones and, his voice choked with emotion, declared American troops should be withdrawn from Iraq “as soon as is practicable.” Literally moments after he stepped away, no fewer than 14 Republicans lined up to denounce not only Murtha’s position but his personal integrity.

Rep. Jean Smith, R-Ohio, the most junior member of Congress, said she received a telephone call from a Marine colonel after the speech. "He asked me to send Congress a message: stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: Only cowards cut and run, Marines never do,” she declared. The White House lashed out with an ad hominen attack on Murtha, labeling him a liberal who sympathized with the opinions of “Fahrenheit 9/11” filmmaker Michael Moore.

The Republican House leadership pushed forward a resolution deliberately and inaccurately labeled as Murtha’s, that called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. armed forces from Iraq. It was resoundingly defeated.

Unfortunately for his rabid and thoughtless critics, Murtha, 73, spent 40 years in the Marine Corps and the corps’ reserve, fought in the Korean and Vietnam wars and was wounded in both, earning two Purple Heart medals and a Bronze Star. Since he was elected in 1973 he has been one of the U.S. Military’s staunchest supporters on the House Appropriations Committee.

The GOP reaction to this event is akin to the last-ditch tactic used by a military unit about to be annihilated by a superior force: throw all resources into an attack hoping the other side will be so confused it crumbles. A combat veteran, Murtha would recognize the tactic.

And, as a veteran leader in both war and poltics, he won't be confused and will continue to hold his ground.

California Election Predictions

1. Whoever loses tomorrow will claim the other side used sleazy tactics and misleading advertisements to gull the voters.

2. If the proposition stripping the legislature of its redistricting powers passes, lawsuits will fly claiming it violates who knows how many other parts of the State Constitution.

3. Most taxpayers will forget the election cost them more than $50 million which could have been better spent on other things they really wanted -- regardless of what they wanted.

4. Countless news publications will once again question whether the California is governable by any kind of system.

Cynical? No. Just experienced.

Unintelligent Design

For thousands of years native Hawaiians believed that volcanic eruptions were a sign that the goddess Pele was angry, the Norse people believed lightning was sent by a ticked off Thor and folks in myriad cultures around the globe figured that murdering a virgin would ensure a good harvest for the tribe. Their thinking was based on a simple question: "You got a better explanation, pal?"

Now comes the "intelligent design" crowd, who contend the absence of a rational, scientific explanation for everything in nature is evidence an intelligent being or spirit created and guides all life.

More artfully put than in ancient times, their argument still comes down to, "You got a better explanation, pal?" and makes about as much sense as eating the heart of your enemy to gain his courage.

Breasts, Prostates, and Money

September is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.

This fiscal year, Congress budgeted about $485 million to research the cause and cure of prostate cancer, which is expected to kill 30,400 men.

Congress also allocated $850 million to research the cause and cure of breast cancer, of which an estimated 40,410 women will die.

That doesn't mean less money should be spent on breast cancer studies. But it does mean a whole lot more should be spent on prostate research.