"The willingness to send others off to die for a misguided war because you wet your pants after 9/11 is called 'cowardice' not courage." - Atrios
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Exorbitant Executive Pay - Lee Raymond is NOT the only greedy CEO bastard!
"It is not good for our society for one class of workers to become an aristocracy at the expense of everyone else." - Jerry Goldberg
An April 24th column by A. J. Carter in New York Newsday focused on an accountant, Jerry Goldberg, who "dealt with his insomnia by counting compensation for the top five executives at each of the Fortune 500 companies - and what he found was eye-opening."
"At 87 of the companies - more than one in six - the top execs' compensation packages (salaries, bonuses, stock options), combined, came out to a figure equal to or greater than 10 percent of that firm's profits (or losses, whichever were applicable). That's a pretty hefty drain on the corporate treasury for only five employees."
"The raw numbers of the group Goldberg calls the Fortunate 2500 were just as startling: an average of $5.7 million a person. That's 127 times the $45,000 salary of the average worker in 2004, the year in which the numbers are based."
So while the media and the public are focusing on the truly obscene (over $400,000,000) retirement package given to one retiring CEO, Exxon/Mobil's Lee Raymond, Goldberg's analysis makes clear that excessive executive compensation is far more widespread than most people suspect. It's the main reason why the economy may be doing "well" statistically but from the perspective of the average worker the economy "sucks."
Visit Goldberg's website, where he's got his spreadsheet, a "Hall of Fame," and some recommended solutions.
http://www.jgfortunate2500list.com
An April 24th column by A. J. Carter in New York Newsday focused on an accountant, Jerry Goldberg, who "dealt with his insomnia by counting compensation for the top five executives at each of the Fortune 500 companies - and what he found was eye-opening."
"At 87 of the companies - more than one in six - the top execs' compensation packages (salaries, bonuses, stock options), combined, came out to a figure equal to or greater than 10 percent of that firm's profits (or losses, whichever were applicable). That's a pretty hefty drain on the corporate treasury for only five employees."
"The raw numbers of the group Goldberg calls the Fortunate 2500 were just as startling: an average of $5.7 million a person. That's 127 times the $45,000 salary of the average worker in 2004, the year in which the numbers are based."
So while the media and the public are focusing on the truly obscene (over $400,000,000) retirement package given to one retiring CEO, Exxon/Mobil's Lee Raymond, Goldberg's analysis makes clear that excessive executive compensation is far more widespread than most people suspect. It's the main reason why the economy may be doing "well" statistically but from the perspective of the average worker the economy "sucks."
Visit Goldberg's website, where he's got his spreadsheet, a "Hall of Fame," and some recommended solutions.
http://www.jgfortunate2500list.com
Friday, March 10, 2006
Dubai Ports World Selling Their U.S. Operations To Halliburton?
Is Dubai Ports World considering selling their U.S. operations To Halliburton?
Think Progress (link below) reports that on last night's PBS News Hour Norm Ornstein discussed that very matter. Here's his take:
If this is done now through the backdoor, where D.P. [Dubai Ports World] has any role at all, Congress is going to go ballistic, and it’s going to be a disaster, I think, for the administration.
They have got a dilemma now, because there simply aren’t American companies that have the know-how and the breadth to do this. Interestingly, and perhaps ironically, what I had heard earlier in the day, as they were looking at those that have the — the kind of resources, Halliburton was a name that came up.
Of course ... Halliburton ... truly "mission accomplished!"
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/09/dpworld-halliburton/
Think Progress (link below) reports that on last night's PBS News Hour Norm Ornstein discussed that very matter. Here's his take:
If this is done now through the backdoor, where D.P. [Dubai Ports World] has any role at all, Congress is going to go ballistic, and it’s going to be a disaster, I think, for the administration.
They have got a dilemma now, because there simply aren’t American companies that have the know-how and the breadth to do this. Interestingly, and perhaps ironically, what I had heard earlier in the day, as they were looking at those that have the — the kind of resources, Halliburton was a name that came up.
Of course ... Halliburton ... truly "mission accomplished!"
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/09/dpworld-halliburton/
Friday, March 03, 2006
Is John McCain "Bush"-whipped?
Here's a shocker. When Bush said "we don't do torture" he wasn't telling the truth, because now the Justice Department is making it clear that we CAN torture detainees so long as those detainees are being held in the "black hole" known as Guantanamo.
In an article in today's Washington Post, "U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban: McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison":
Bush administration lawyers, fighting a claim of torture by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, yesterday argued that the new law that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody does not apply to people held at the military prison.
In federal court yesterday and in legal filings, Justice Department lawyers contended that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot use legislation drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to challenge treatment that the detainee's lawyers described as "systematic torture."
Government lawyers have argued that another portion of that same law, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, removes general access to U.S. courts for all Guantanamo Bay captives. Therefore, they said, Mohammed Bawazir, a Yemeni national held since May 2002, cannot claim protection under the anti-torture provisions.
This is certainly a slap in the face to John McCain. Now we're going to find out if McCain really has the political "balls" to challenge Bush on this issue or if McCain is really, as many suspect, "Bush"-whipped.
Here's the link to the WaPo article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030202054.html
In an article in today's Washington Post, "U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban: McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison":
Bush administration lawyers, fighting a claim of torture by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, yesterday argued that the new law that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody does not apply to people held at the military prison.
In federal court yesterday and in legal filings, Justice Department lawyers contended that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot use legislation drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to challenge treatment that the detainee's lawyers described as "systematic torture."
Government lawyers have argued that another portion of that same law, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, removes general access to U.S. courts for all Guantanamo Bay captives. Therefore, they said, Mohammed Bawazir, a Yemeni national held since May 2002, cannot claim protection under the anti-torture provisions.
This is certainly a slap in the face to John McCain. Now we're going to find out if McCain really has the political "balls" to challenge Bush on this issue or if McCain is really, as many suspect, "Bush"-whipped.
Here's the link to the WaPo article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030202054.html
Thursday, March 02, 2006
George W. Bush ... caught on tape ... AGAIN!
Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing column, which appears Monday through Friday only on the Washington Post website (generally around 1PM EST), has become one of my essential daily reads.
In today's column, one of his best to date, which he has titled "Caught on Tape, " Froomkin opens with a discussion of the devastating video released by the AP:
* * *
A newly leaked video from Aug. 28 shows President Bush sitting passively as he is briefed on the killer storm heading directly for the Gulf Coast. Senior officials voice dire predictions including the distinct possibility of severe flooding in New Orleans.
He asks no questions. And when he spoke it was to offer what turned out be unfounded assurances.
* * *
... Bush's quote about not anticipating the breach has become a symbol of his lackluster response to the hurricane.
Even a report from House Republicans recently found that "earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response" because he alone could have cut through all bureaucratic resistance.
Apparently as a rejoinder to the new video, the White House yesterday suddenly sent around a transcript that it previously said didn't exist, from a conference call on the following day. It includes a second-hand account of Bush's activities from Michael Brown, the Bush-appointed FEMA director who later resigned in disgrace, describing the president as engaged, watching TV and asking questions.
White House spokesman Trent Duffy said this yesterday: "I hope people don't draw conclusions from the president getting a single briefing. He received multiple briefings from multiple officials, and he was completely engaged at all times."
But where, then, is the first-hand evidence of this engagement? Where is the evidence of Bush's leadership?
The government's response to Hurricane Katrina was (and continues to be) a massive failure. The new videotape offers a visceral illustration of how some, if not a lot of the blame, lay in a leader who saw his job as expressing unjustified confidence and making empty promises, rather than taking action to make sure his people were safe.
* * *
OK, all of these are excellent points, but then Froomkin proceeds do something that, to my knowledge, no other writer has yet done - link this new videotape to other, older video footage of Bush that none of us will never forget.
* * *
Hurricane Katrina (as I wrote as early as Aug. 31 was the second great challenge of Bush's presidency.
Which inevitably makes me think of how Bush responded, in a moment also "caught on tape," to his first. After finding out that the nation was under attack on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush remained frozen in his seat in a Florida classroom for seven minutes.
The grainy video from that classroom, a hallmark of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," can be found at The Memory Hole.
A staff report from the 9/11 commission described that morning:
"The President was seated in a classroom of second graders when, at approximately 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: 'A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.' The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis."
But even after he left the classroom, he didn't call the Pentagon. He didn't ask if there were other aircraft hijacked or missing. Instead, he and his staff worked on a statement to the press.
Faced with challenges like these -- an attack on our nation or a natural disaster bearing down on our shores -- we can reasonably expect that our presidents will stand up, demand answers and options, and lead.
If the White House insists that Bush did that with Hurricane Katrina, it is incumbent upon them to back up that claim up with evidence. Otherwise, the image of him mouthing platitudes threatens to become defining of his presidency.
* * *
The linking of the Katrina footage to that of the "My Pet Goat" 9/11 footage ... a slam dunk!
George W. Bush ... worst ... President ... EVER!
In today's column, one of his best to date, which he has titled "Caught on Tape, " Froomkin opens with a discussion of the devastating video released by the AP:
* * *
A newly leaked video from Aug. 28 shows President Bush sitting passively as he is briefed on the killer storm heading directly for the Gulf Coast. Senior officials voice dire predictions including the distinct possibility of severe flooding in New Orleans.
He asks no questions. And when he spoke it was to offer what turned out be unfounded assurances.
* * *
... Bush's quote about not anticipating the breach has become a symbol of his lackluster response to the hurricane.
Even a report from House Republicans recently found that "earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response" because he alone could have cut through all bureaucratic resistance.
Apparently as a rejoinder to the new video, the White House yesterday suddenly sent around a transcript that it previously said didn't exist, from a conference call on the following day. It includes a second-hand account of Bush's activities from Michael Brown, the Bush-appointed FEMA director who later resigned in disgrace, describing the president as engaged, watching TV and asking questions.
White House spokesman Trent Duffy said this yesterday: "I hope people don't draw conclusions from the president getting a single briefing. He received multiple briefings from multiple officials, and he was completely engaged at all times."
But where, then, is the first-hand evidence of this engagement? Where is the evidence of Bush's leadership?
The government's response to Hurricane Katrina was (and continues to be) a massive failure. The new videotape offers a visceral illustration of how some, if not a lot of the blame, lay in a leader who saw his job as expressing unjustified confidence and making empty promises, rather than taking action to make sure his people were safe.
* * *
OK, all of these are excellent points, but then Froomkin proceeds do something that, to my knowledge, no other writer has yet done - link this new videotape to other, older video footage of Bush that none of us will never forget.
* * *
Hurricane Katrina (as I wrote as early as Aug. 31 was the second great challenge of Bush's presidency.
Which inevitably makes me think of how Bush responded, in a moment also "caught on tape," to his first. After finding out that the nation was under attack on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush remained frozen in his seat in a Florida classroom for seven minutes.
The grainy video from that classroom, a hallmark of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," can be found at The Memory Hole.
A staff report from the 9/11 commission described that morning:
"The President was seated in a classroom of second graders when, at approximately 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: 'A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.' The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis."
But even after he left the classroom, he didn't call the Pentagon. He didn't ask if there were other aircraft hijacked or missing. Instead, he and his staff worked on a statement to the press.
Faced with challenges like these -- an attack on our nation or a natural disaster bearing down on our shores -- we can reasonably expect that our presidents will stand up, demand answers and options, and lead.
If the White House insists that Bush did that with Hurricane Katrina, it is incumbent upon them to back up that claim up with evidence. Otherwise, the image of him mouthing platitudes threatens to become defining of his presidency.
* * *
The linking of the Katrina footage to that of the "My Pet Goat" 9/11 footage ... a slam dunk!
George W. Bush ... worst ... President ... EVER!
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Email reveals the "scary" mindset of some in the F.B.I.
Given that The Patriot Act might be renewed today, I was reminded of an article which appeared in the Sunday New York Times back on December 11th which is very revealing of the mindset of some of those who have been given the responsibility of "protecting" us from the terrorists.
The article, "At F.B.I., Frustration Over Limits on an Antiterror Law" by Eric Lichtblau, is unfortunately only available now to "Times Select" subscribers. Here's the link for those of you who are:
http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=frustration%20%22an%20antiterror%20law%22&date_select=full&srchst=nyt
For those who aren't subscribers, let me quote some segments:
* * *
Some agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been frustrated by what they see as the Justice Department's reluctance to let them demand records and to use other far-ranging investigative measures in terrorism cases, newly disclosed e-mail messages and internal documents show.
Publicly, the debate over the law known as the USA Patriot Act has focused on concerns from civil rights advocates that the F.B.I. has gained too much power to use expanded investigative tools to go on what could amount to fishing expeditions.
But the newly disclosed e-mail messages offer a competing view, showing that, privately, some F.B.I. agents have felt hamstrung by their inability to get approval for using new powers under the Patriot Act, which was passed weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
One internal F.B.I. message, sent in October 2003, criticized the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review at the Justice Department, which reviews and approves terrorist warrants, as regularly blocking requests from the F.B.I. to use a section of the antiterrorism law that gave the bureau broader authority to demand records from institutions like banks, Internet providers and libraries.
''While radical militant librarians kick us around, true terrorists benefit from OIPR's failure to let us use the tools given to us,'' read the e-mail message, which was sent by an unidentified F.B.I. official. ''This should be an OIPR priority!!!''
* * *
Hmmm ... those damn "militant librarians" who believe in such "radical" ideas as The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Why, those librarians might even expect that our President himself would be required to obey the laws, even those he doesn't like, such as FISA!
Folks, we're living in "1984" ... thanks to George W. Bush!
The article, "At F.B.I., Frustration Over Limits on an Antiterror Law" by Eric Lichtblau, is unfortunately only available now to "Times Select" subscribers. Here's the link for those of you who are:
http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=frustration%20%22an%20antiterror%20law%22&date_select=full&srchst=nyt
For those who aren't subscribers, let me quote some segments:
* * *
Some agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been frustrated by what they see as the Justice Department's reluctance to let them demand records and to use other far-ranging investigative measures in terrorism cases, newly disclosed e-mail messages and internal documents show.
Publicly, the debate over the law known as the USA Patriot Act has focused on concerns from civil rights advocates that the F.B.I. has gained too much power to use expanded investigative tools to go on what could amount to fishing expeditions.
But the newly disclosed e-mail messages offer a competing view, showing that, privately, some F.B.I. agents have felt hamstrung by their inability to get approval for using new powers under the Patriot Act, which was passed weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
One internal F.B.I. message, sent in October 2003, criticized the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review at the Justice Department, which reviews and approves terrorist warrants, as regularly blocking requests from the F.B.I. to use a section of the antiterrorism law that gave the bureau broader authority to demand records from institutions like banks, Internet providers and libraries.
''While radical militant librarians kick us around, true terrorists benefit from OIPR's failure to let us use the tools given to us,'' read the e-mail message, which was sent by an unidentified F.B.I. official. ''This should be an OIPR priority!!!''
* * *
Hmmm ... those damn "militant librarians" who believe in such "radical" ideas as The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Why, those librarians might even expect that our President himself would be required to obey the laws, even those he doesn't like, such as FISA!
Folks, we're living in "1984" ... thanks to George W. Bush!
Hello? Mainstream media? The UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports, not just 6!
Last week (February 24) UPI reported that, contrary to repeated assertions by the Bush Administration that the UAE deal was for 6 US ports, the deal would actually extend to 21 ports:
A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.
The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.
P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site.
A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.
The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.
P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site.
So its really 21 ports, not 6. As I would expect, Keith Olbermann (MSNBC's "Countdown") covered this on his show that Friday evening, and it was all over the bloggs. But last Sunday's talk shows totally ignored this important new information. And the mainstream media (newspapers and TV) continue to claim it is only 6 ports.
Why? Is Karl Rove pressuring the media to stay away from reporting this because it makes the deal sound even worse?
Here's the link to the full article.
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r
How many Republicans does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Found on the Internet. Author unknown.
----------------------------------
How many Republicans does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Answer : Ten
1. One to deny that the light bulb needs to be changed.
2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed.
3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb.
4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or they are for darkness.
5. One to give a billion dollar no bid contract to Halliburton for a new light bulb.
6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush dressed as a janitor standing on a step ladder under a huge banner: "Light bulb change accomplished!"
7. One administration insider to resign and write about documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark.
8. One to viciously smear number 7.
9 One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along.
10. And finally one to confuse the American people about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.
----------------------------------
How many Republicans does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Answer : Ten
1. One to deny that the light bulb needs to be changed.
2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed.
3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb.
4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or they are for darkness.
5. One to give a billion dollar no bid contract to Halliburton for a new light bulb.
6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush dressed as a janitor standing on a step ladder under a huge banner: "Light bulb change accomplished!"
7. One administration insider to resign and write about documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark.
8. One to viciously smear number 7.
9 One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along.
10. And finally one to confuse the American people about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Jack Cafferty goes after President - NOT King - George Bush
On CNN's "The Situation Room" host Blitzer is generally more "lap dog" than Wolf when it comes to covering [for] the Bush Administration's latest abuses of power. But, fortunately for us, cranky show regular Jack Cafferty exhibits no such deference.
Last Friday, the New York Time's story about Bush's unilateral - and illegal - authorization of domestic spying activities really set Jack off!
Here, in his uniquely sarcastic fashion, is how Cafferty describes the Bush Administration's core dismissive attitude towards our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the balance of powers, International agreements, etc.:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who cares if the Patriot Act get's renewed. Want to abuse our civil liberties-Just do it!
Who cares about the Geneva conventions? Want to torture prisoners-Just do it!
Who cares about rules concerning the identity of CIA gents. Want to reveal the name of a covert operative? Just do it!
Who cares about whether the intelligence concerning WMD's is accurate. You want to invade Iraq? Just do it.
Who cares about qualifications to serve on the nation's highest court. Want to nominate a personal friend with no qualifications? Just do it.
And the latest outrage, which I read about in "The New York Times" this morning, who cares about needing a court order to eavesdrop on American citizens. Want to wiretap their phones conversations? Just do it.
What a joke. A very cruel, very sad joke.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've got to see the video. Go to the invaluable Crooks and Liars website:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/16.html#a6350
Last Friday, the New York Time's story about Bush's unilateral - and illegal - authorization of domestic spying activities really set Jack off!
Here, in his uniquely sarcastic fashion, is how Cafferty describes the Bush Administration's core dismissive attitude towards our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the balance of powers, International agreements, etc.:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who cares if the Patriot Act get's renewed. Want to abuse our civil liberties-Just do it!
Who cares about the Geneva conventions? Want to torture prisoners-Just do it!
Who cares about rules concerning the identity of CIA gents. Want to reveal the name of a covert operative? Just do it!
Who cares about whether the intelligence concerning WMD's is accurate. You want to invade Iraq? Just do it.
Who cares about qualifications to serve on the nation's highest court. Want to nominate a personal friend with no qualifications? Just do it.
And the latest outrage, which I read about in "The New York Times" this morning, who cares about needing a court order to eavesdrop on American citizens. Want to wiretap their phones conversations? Just do it.
What a joke. A very cruel, very sad joke.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've got to see the video. Go to the invaluable Crooks and Liars website:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/16.html#a6350
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Great articles on Judy Miller in VANITY FAIR and THE NEW YORKER
Given the revelations this week of even more ways in which George W. Bush considers himself above the law - we've known for a long time that his administration's actions were based on faith, ignoring the facts, and now we're learning they've been ignoring the constitution as well - and the recent twists and turns in the CIA leak case (Bob Woodward, Viveca Novack) , articles and discussions about Judy "Miss Run Amock" Miller and The New York Times have largely disappeared from both the MSM and the blogs.
But if you have been following the "Judy/Times" story there are two fascinating articles you won't want to miss:
1. Seth Mnookin's piece in the January 2006 issue of VANITY FAIR, entitled "Unreliable Sources," which the magazine intros as follows: "A rogue reporter named Jayson Blair brought down The New York Times' top editors. Could a rogue reporter named Judith Miller bring down its publisher? The times own investigation of Miller's role in the Valerie Plame scandal raises new questions about the judgment of Arthur Sulzberger Jr."
Here is just one choice excerpt:
"Miller had been controversial for as long as she'd been wielding a notebook. She was relentless, indefatigable, ultra-competitive, and extremely well connected. (She dated Steve Rattner, one of Sulzberger's best friends when the three of them worked at the Times' Washington bureau, and had even, for a time, shared a vacation home with Sulzberger.) She had a reputation for sleeping with her sources (in the 1980s, she both lived with then congressman Les Aspin and quoted him in her dispatches); for bigfooting her way onto other people's beats; for raining down torrents of abuse on clerks, travel agents, and drivers; and for cutting down her colleagues. "
The article is as much about Arthur Sulzbereger Jr. and Bill Keller as it is about Judy. For the complete article go to:
http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/051212roco04
2. Ken Auletta's article in "The Inheritance" in THE NEW YORKER is focused on publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and contains many details on the Judy story which were new to me. Here's an excerpt:
"In Robert Bennett’s view, Sulzberger caused problems for his client. “I don’t know what advice he got from his lawyers, but he was very gung-ho,” Bennett said of Sulzberger. “He was pushing Judy”—to not bend on principle. “When I raised issues—‘Shouldn’t we check on the waiver thing?’ ”—that is, on whether Libby genuinely had no objection to Miller’s revealing her source—“they were resistant to raising that issue.” Bennett was astonished that Keller and Sulzberger had not inspected Miller’s notebook. He said, “How could the Times have embarked on this venture without knowing all of the facts?” Floyd Abrams, the newspaper’s attorney, rejects the suggestion that he and the Times and Miller were swept up by a righteous stand on behalf of an abstract principle; he said that he had briefed Keller and Sulzberger on the notebook’s contents. “The first time I met Judy on this case, the first thing she said was ‘Somebody has to fight back against Fitzgerald,’ ” Abrams said. “I’m not trying to escape responsibility, but Judy was a very active client. It seems to me that if you don’t continually ask, ‘What is the principle you’re trying to establish?,’ there is nothing left to defend.”"
For the full article go to:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051219fa_fact
NOTE: If I haven't been posting on my blog for several months it's not because I haven't been sufficient outraged by recent events. In mid September I learned that, as a result of a clerical error, I being given the opportunity to once again teach an Adult Ed course on American Movie Comedy ... starting the following week! I was very happy to be teaching the course but the time required to pre-screen and select films, write program notes and prepare my intros and discussion notes left me no spare moments to post to my blog. Since my course ends next week I hope to be posting here on a regular basis once more ... or at least til my next course starts in February, which will be an overview of TV Comedy of the 1950s.
But if you have been following the "Judy/Times" story there are two fascinating articles you won't want to miss:
1. Seth Mnookin's piece in the January 2006 issue of VANITY FAIR, entitled "Unreliable Sources," which the magazine intros as follows: "A rogue reporter named Jayson Blair brought down The New York Times' top editors. Could a rogue reporter named Judith Miller bring down its publisher? The times own investigation of Miller's role in the Valerie Plame scandal raises new questions about the judgment of Arthur Sulzberger Jr."
Here is just one choice excerpt:
"Miller had been controversial for as long as she'd been wielding a notebook. She was relentless, indefatigable, ultra-competitive, and extremely well connected. (She dated Steve Rattner, one of Sulzberger's best friends when the three of them worked at the Times' Washington bureau, and had even, for a time, shared a vacation home with Sulzberger.) She had a reputation for sleeping with her sources (in the 1980s, she both lived with then congressman Les Aspin and quoted him in her dispatches); for bigfooting her way onto other people's beats; for raining down torrents of abuse on clerks, travel agents, and drivers; and for cutting down her colleagues. "
The article is as much about Arthur Sulzbereger Jr. and Bill Keller as it is about Judy. For the complete article go to:
http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/051212roco04
2. Ken Auletta's article in "The Inheritance" in THE NEW YORKER is focused on publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and contains many details on the Judy story which were new to me. Here's an excerpt:
"In Robert Bennett’s view, Sulzberger caused problems for his client. “I don’t know what advice he got from his lawyers, but he was very gung-ho,” Bennett said of Sulzberger. “He was pushing Judy”—to not bend on principle. “When I raised issues—‘Shouldn’t we check on the waiver thing?’ ”—that is, on whether Libby genuinely had no objection to Miller’s revealing her source—“they were resistant to raising that issue.” Bennett was astonished that Keller and Sulzberger had not inspected Miller’s notebook. He said, “How could the Times have embarked on this venture without knowing all of the facts?” Floyd Abrams, the newspaper’s attorney, rejects the suggestion that he and the Times and Miller were swept up by a righteous stand on behalf of an abstract principle; he said that he had briefed Keller and Sulzberger on the notebook’s contents. “The first time I met Judy on this case, the first thing she said was ‘Somebody has to fight back against Fitzgerald,’ ” Abrams said. “I’m not trying to escape responsibility, but Judy was a very active client. It seems to me that if you don’t continually ask, ‘What is the principle you’re trying to establish?,’ there is nothing left to defend.”"
For the full article go to:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051219fa_fact
NOTE: If I haven't been posting on my blog for several months it's not because I haven't been sufficient outraged by recent events. In mid September I learned that, as a result of a clerical error, I being given the opportunity to once again teach an Adult Ed course on American Movie Comedy ... starting the following week! I was very happy to be teaching the course but the time required to pre-screen and select films, write program notes and prepare my intros and discussion notes left me no spare moments to post to my blog. Since my course ends next week I hope to be posting here on a regular basis once more ... or at least til my next course starts in February, which will be an overview of TV Comedy of the 1950s.
