Copperfield's Bahama Mamas
You report, "The woman then went to the U.S. Attorney's Office, which asked
the FBI to investigate." I'm not doubting this, but when I once went to the US
Attorney's office in Boston one of the Assistant Attorneys told me that they do
not take complaints. He told me that the FBI refers matters to them for
prosecution. I believed then it was because they did not want to get involved in
a matter of Harvard University violating US law.
The Office of Human Research Protection (NIH) is supposed to protect
humans used for US taxpayer funded medical experiments. Under OHRP regulations
complaints they get are referred to the institution accused of wrongdoing. I've
seen this in action when 7 persons died in gene therapy trials in Boston
(Harvard teaching hospitals). I asked the police if I were accused of homicide
would I be allowed to do my own investigation? That is the sorry state of
affairs under OHRP regulations. I was surprised to read your report of how this
matter got to the FBI.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
David Copperfield owns a Bahamanian island.
Grand jury investigates Copperfield allegations
By Mike Carter
Seattle Times staff reporter
A Seattle federal grand jury is investigating allegations by an aspiring model
from Washington who said she was raped, assaulted and threatened by magician
David Copperfield at his private island in the Bahamas in July, at least three
federal law-enforcement officials have confirmed.
The Washington woman has told law enforcement that she and her family were
approached at a Jan. 25 performance in the Tri-Cities area by a member of
Copperfield's entourage almost as soon as they entered the auditorium. They were
led to special seats, and Copperfield selected the woman to come on stage as
part of his act, the federal sources said.
Sources confirmed that the woman told investigators Copperfield later promised
he could help with her modeling career and invited her to his isolated $50
million private retreat at Musha Cay, in a tiny string of white-sand islands 85
miles southeast of Nassau, Bahamas.
She told investigators Copperfield assured her that there would be other guests
at the 150-acre resort, which is restricted to a maximum of 24 guests and rents
for up to $50,000 a night. From Nassau, the retreat is accessible only by
charter plane and then private boat.
When the woman, 21, made the trip in late July -- after exchanging e-mails with
Copperfield, 51 -- she found herself the only guest on the island with him, she
told investigators. She has told Seattle police, and later the FBI, that
Copperfield raped and struck her during her two days on the island, said sources
familiar with her allegations.
She said that, afterward, Copperfield threatened her, telling her she'd better
keep quiet, and then escorted her onto a plane, sources said.
Copperfield's attorney, David Chesnoff of Las Vegas, reiterated Friday that
"Copperfield has never forced himself on anyone."
After leaving Nassau, the woman flew to Florida and then Seattle, where she told
her family what happened and went to the Harborview Center for Sexual Assault
and Traumatic Stress, sources said. A rape kit was assembled, and a federal
source has confirmed that some of her clothing was taken into evidence.
The woman also reported the matter to Seattle police, who said a report was
taken but will not release it. Federal sources and others said the woman was
told that the department had no jurisdiction to investigate a crime that
occurred in another country, and that the department took no other action.
The woman then went to the U.S. Attorney's Office, which asked the FBI to
investigate. The woman and her family live in Washington and, because her trip
began and ended in the U.S. -- even though the alleged crime occurred elsewhere
-- federal agents have claimed jurisdiction in the case.
Emily Langlie, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, said the office
would not comment. Two of the office's top prosecutors have been assigned to
oversee the investigation and evidence is being presented to a grand jury,
according to law-enforcement sources. No indictment or criminal charges have
been filed.
Chesnoff, Copperfield's attorney, said Friday he could not comment on the
allegations.
"We have said we are going to honor the confidentiality of the investigation,"
he said, adding that he was disappointed that some in law enforcement have
chosen not to do the same. "Apparently [they] don't have the same respect for
the law, and it casts doubt on the integrity of this investigation."
The Seattle office of the FBI, which is heading the investigation, raided
Copperfield's property warehouse and magic museum in Las Vegas last week. The
search warrant remains sealed.
Mike Carter: 206-464-3706 or mcarter@seattletimes.com
October 28, 2007
October 16, 2007
Cambridge MA Ignores Person with Disabilities
Cambridge MA Ignores Person with Disabilities
IMHO journalists share with politicians the marginalization of persons with
disabilities (PWD). Local and national journalists ignore my inquiries while
continuing to insult and to ridicule PWD.
The Chronicle is co-sponsor of some of the candidate forms. Isn't it
curious how all candidates support affordable housing, the environment and
Education? Yet each forum asks the same lame questions. Is that news? I heard no
questions about discrimination toward PWD. Only Kathy Podgers mentioned a disability issue. At the School Comm disability is an education and health care issue with no focus on discrimination, which is thought of as not getting treatment.
The Cambridge Human Rights Commission, the Police Review Board and the ACLU
omitted PWD from their forums on discrimination. The Chronicle did not report
that.
After the two candidate forums on Oct 10, 2007 at CRLS Lesley Phillips who
is Chair of the Progressive Democrats, a ward chair for the Cambridge Democratic
Party, a member of the new Gay and Lesbian Commission, and a leading campaigner
for Al Gore openly insulted me. She is aware of negative stereotyping, having
experienced much herself.
Robert Winters (a love object of Phillips), celebrated as the "premier
observer" of Cambridge politics stated in print that he does not believe that
PWD should run for office. He openly ridicules on his web pages a few local
residents. He is not vilified. He is celebrated while having those views. Would
that be tolerated if he said the same things about persons of color, women etc?
Why was that not reported in the Chronicle?
Journalists are aware of bias toward women, homosexuals and persons of
color. But there is little interest in unlawful bias toward PWD. Liberal bloggers on
Blue Man Group ignore this issue as well. They are as biased as the rest of the
area. Let me guess, it just didn't enter their mind?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
IMHO journalists share with politicians the marginalization of persons with
disabilities (PWD). Local and national journalists ignore my inquiries while
continuing to insult and to ridicule PWD.
The Chronicle is co-sponsor of some of the candidate forms. Isn't it
curious how all candidates support affordable housing, the environment and
Education? Yet each forum asks the same lame questions. Is that news? I heard no
questions about discrimination toward PWD. Only Kathy Podgers mentioned a disability issue. At the School Comm disability is an education and health care issue with no focus on discrimination, which is thought of as not getting treatment.
The Cambridge Human Rights Commission, the Police Review Board and the ACLU
omitted PWD from their forums on discrimination. The Chronicle did not report
that.
After the two candidate forums on Oct 10, 2007 at CRLS Lesley Phillips who
is Chair of the Progressive Democrats, a ward chair for the Cambridge Democratic
Party, a member of the new Gay and Lesbian Commission, and a leading campaigner
for Al Gore openly insulted me. She is aware of negative stereotyping, having
experienced much herself.
Robert Winters (a love object of Phillips), celebrated as the "premier
observer" of Cambridge politics stated in print that he does not believe that
PWD should run for office. He openly ridicules on his web pages a few local
residents. He is not vilified. He is celebrated while having those views. Would
that be tolerated if he said the same things about persons of color, women etc?
Why was that not reported in the Chronicle?
Journalists are aware of bias toward women, homosexuals and persons of
color. But there is little interest in unlawful bias toward PWD. Liberal bloggers on
Blue Man Group ignore this issue as well. They are as biased as the rest of the
area. Let me guess, it just didn't enter their mind?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
No Rules of Evidence, Still No Truth?
No Rules of Evidence, Still No Truth?
Negotiator David Fairman says "it's amazing how smart people can let
emotions blind them to what's really important." (CINDY CANTRELL, "The consensus
is, Fairman deserves World Peace award," Boston Globe, October 14, 2007) For any
negotiation to be correct, both sides of a dispute must be truthful. In courts
truth is obscured by rules of evidence precluding a satisfactory solution.
How do negotiators decide who is being truthful? By their credentials? By
their wealth or prestige? Negotiations are a business just like the courts. The
better deceivers always win. Self deception is no less a deception.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
CAMBRIDGE
The consensus is, Fairman deserves World Peace award
Boston Globe
October 14, 2007
As an undergraduate student at Harvard University, David Fairman traveled to
India, where he was taken aback by how villagers' lives were so monetarily poor
but culturally rich.
"The experience changed my life," Fairman said. "I had enjoyed a privileged
upbringing in Long Island. I came back puzzling over how the world can be so
unequal."
Determined to help the poor in the United States, Fairman discovered he had a
skill and passion for mediation while helping landlords and low-income tenants
achieve compromise in Somerville.
Since that time, he has dedicated his career to mediating public policy, social
services, and development disputes, both domestically and overseas.
Now managing director of international programs at the Consensus Building
Institute in Cambridge and a resident of Lexington, Fairman was recently
presented with the Rotary Club of Lexington's inaugural World Peace and
Understanding Award.
"For any of us who are sure we're in the right and someone else is in the
wrong," Fairman said, "it's useful to step back and decide what we really want
to achieve and how much we care about the relationship beyond this set of
issues. It's common sense, but it's amazing how smart people can let emotions
blind them to what's really important."
CINDY CANTRELL
Negotiator David Fairman says "it's amazing how smart people can let
emotions blind them to what's really important." (CINDY CANTRELL, "The consensus
is, Fairman deserves World Peace award," Boston Globe, October 14, 2007) For any
negotiation to be correct, both sides of a dispute must be truthful. In courts
truth is obscured by rules of evidence precluding a satisfactory solution.
How do negotiators decide who is being truthful? By their credentials? By
their wealth or prestige? Negotiations are a business just like the courts. The
better deceivers always win. Self deception is no less a deception.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
CAMBRIDGE
The consensus is, Fairman deserves World Peace award
Boston Globe
October 14, 2007
As an undergraduate student at Harvard University, David Fairman traveled to
India, where he was taken aback by how villagers' lives were so monetarily poor
but culturally rich.
"The experience changed my life," Fairman said. "I had enjoyed a privileged
upbringing in Long Island. I came back puzzling over how the world can be so
unequal."
Determined to help the poor in the United States, Fairman discovered he had a
skill and passion for mediation while helping landlords and low-income tenants
achieve compromise in Somerville.
Since that time, he has dedicated his career to mediating public policy, social
services, and development disputes, both domestically and overseas.
Now managing director of international programs at the Consensus Building
Institute in Cambridge and a resident of Lexington, Fairman was recently
presented with the Rotary Club of Lexington's inaugural World Peace and
Understanding Award.
"For any of us who are sure we're in the right and someone else is in the
wrong," Fairman said, "it's useful to step back and decide what we really want
to achieve and how much we care about the relationship beyond this set of
issues. It's common sense, but it's amazing how smart people can let emotions
blind them to what's really important."
CINDY CANTRELL
Curious Censorship
Curious Censorship
Patients are grateful for the altruistic sexual favors Dr. Gorman provided
to
his colleague/patient as chief psychiatrist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York.
Did this play a role in why Harvard chose him to head the Mass/Harvard
psychiatric combine. (Scott Allen, "A doctor's downfall, McLean's fallout,"
Boston Globe, October 14, 2007)
Gorman's case exemplifies institutionalized abuses of academic
professionals. First is the total lack of accountability. Politicians wonder why
young people refuse to assist police in criminal investigations. Do
psychiatrists snitch on their colleagues? Ahem!
Among academics, credentials provide instant credibility and iron-clad
immunity from scrutiny. The MA Medical Board knew "within days." So why was this
kept secret? To protect Gorman from eager patients?
Enjoying immunity from scrutiny with power and privileges, omniscient
psychiatrists with knowledge of the future are more likely to abuse their power.
Showing how distorted the public discourse on psychiatry is, his own
employees offered sympathy for the man who embarrassed them and abused his
power.
This is symptomatic of the psychiatric boondoggle. It is more rule than
exception. Many psychiatrists refuse to provide sexual favors for their love
starved patients. But they abuse their power relationships in other ways. What
do these charlatans know that the rest of the human race does not? Where did
they get their superior knowledge of morality? From doctors like Gorman? His
abuses of power are rewarded by the New York psychiatric establishment. He is
still qualified to teach other psychiatrists so that they can adopt his
standards of care.
Dr. Gorman poster boy for "The Cheating Culture."
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
A doctor's downfall, McLean's fallout
Sex secret kept quiet for a year
Dr. Jack Gorman admitted having sex with a patient.
By Scott Allen,
Boston Globe Staff
October 14, 2007
One Monday morning in April 2006, Dr. Jack M. Gorman, new president of McLean
Hospital in Belmont, simply stopped showing up for work.
For days, increasingly worried hospital officials didn't know what had become of
their leader until, finally, a family member answering a call at his New York
City home revealed that Gorman was in a hospital intensive care unit being
treated for an ailment that the person wouldn't reveal.
So began the spectacular downfall of a highly respected psychiatrist who had
arrived at the Harvard-affiliated hospital just a few months earlier to take on
one of the most influential jobs in mental health care.
Over the next few days, officials at McLean learned that Gorman had, like so
many patients at the renowned psychiatric hospital, attempted suicide. But their
initial sympathy for a sick man turned to horror when they learned, from a legal
document delivered in mid-May, why he had taken such a desperate measure. The
married father of two had brought a shameful secret with him to Massachusetts:
He had engaged in a long-term sexual relationship with a New York patient.
Any romantic involvement with a patient is strictly forbidden in psychiatry, and
Gorman's entanglement would drive him to self- destruction, resignation, and
disgrace - finally spattering McLean's reputation as well when it became public
last week.
PDF OF GORMAN DOCUMENTS: The investigation report, letter to MacLean staff, and
New York suspension order
For more than 16 months, both sides kept the whole episode quiet, saying only
that Gorman had left McLean in May 2006 for undisclosed "personal and medical
reasons." In reality, Gorman stopped coming to work because he had overdosed on
antidepressant pills after his patient, distraught over Gorman's move to
Massachusetts, hired a lawyer and threatened to expose their relationship,
according to people directly involved in the case. Though the pills hadn't
killed him, Gorman needed weeks in the hospital to recuperate.
Now, McLean Hospital is publicly facing the fall-out from one of the more tawdry
chapters in its nearly 200-year history. Last week, Partners HealthCare, the
parent company of McLean, conducted a review of Gorman's brief tenure to
reassure state regulators that he had not sexually abused patients there.
Gorman didn't treat any individual patients at McLean, concluded Partners chief
operating officer Thomas P. Glynn, both because he was too busy as president and
because he only obtained a license to treat Massachusetts patients a few days
before he departed. Glynn said last week's review and an internal investigation
last year did not turn up new allegations against him. In addition, he said that
McLean notified Massachusetts medical regulators about the sexual misconduct
within days of Gorman's departure.
On Friday, hospital officials stressed in a letter to staff and patients that
the hospital did nothing wrong in its handling of Gorman's problems and that the
only apparent victim was the patient, a woman who was also a colleague of Gorman
when he was in New York.
"We appreciate that this may be surprising and disturbing information for many
of you," wrote McLean's chairwoman of the board, Kathleen F. Feldstein, and new
president, Scott L. Rauch. "Our hope is that we can continue to focus on the
important work of caring for our patients, training mental health professionals
and advancing scientific knowledge, as we have always done."
But the leaders of McLean and Partners face lingering questions from the many
people connected to McLean who feel betrayed by their former chief executive:
How could they have hired the doctor in the first place? And why didn't they
speak up earlier about Gorman's misconduct?
Gorman, 55, inspired great hope when McLean and Partners announced that they had
lured him away from New York City's Mount Sinai School of Medicine in October
2005. After a two-year search for someone to take on the newly created job of
top psychiatrist for all of Partners HealthCare, they had landed a highly
respected authority on anxiety disorders, depression, and schizophrenia who had
won numerous awards for his research. He was also a seasoned administrator and
the author of books on psychiatry for a general audience, making him a seemingly
ideal candidate to be the face of both McLean and of Harvard University
psychiatry.
Almost immediately, Gorman struggled to adjust to his new life. His wife and
daughters didn't relocate with him, resulting in lots of travel back and forth
to New York at a time when he was trying to understand the vast research and
treatment program he was now running. At the same time, bureaucratic delays kept
Gorman from obtaining his medical license in Massachusetts until April 5, 2006,
meaning he could not legally prescribe medications for patients at McLean during
the first few months of his tenure.
Still, people said they were impressed by Gorman's intellect and sense of
purpose in his new position. As one staff member put it, "He just radiated
hope."
As a result, when Gorman did not report for work on Monday, April 24, 2006, his
staff did not automatically assume something was amiss. However, Glynn said
worries began to mount when staff members called Gorman's home and did not get a
clear explanation of his whereabouts. "Finally, I think it was maybe at the
beginning of May when we were finally told by someone that he was in the
hospital for personal and health issues," said Glynn.
Over the next few days, McLean and Partners officials learned that Gorman had
attempted suicide and that he was in the hospital for serious gastrointestinal
problems. A person close to Gorman said he had taken numerous tricyclic
antidepressants, 1950s vintage drugs still widely used in the Prozac era that
are known to be poisonous at high doses.
The fact that their new chief executive had attempted to kill himself raised
serious doubts about whether he could continue, Glynn said, but as late as May
16, 2006, the hospital was still treating Gorman as a sick man deserving of
sympathy. At a fund-raiser on that day, McLean chairwoman Feldstein urged the
audience to send Gorman their best wishes for a speedy recovery so that he could
return to McLean.
But immediately after that event, Partners officials said, they received a legal
document outlining Gorman's relationship with the woman dating to 2003. The
document said that the woman had been both a patient and a colleague, traveling
to conferences with Gorman while also getting psychiatric care from him. The
relationship had soured after he accepted the McLean job, and she had hired a
Boston lawyer to file a possible lawsuit.
Suddenly, the suicide attempt made sense and, Glynn said, it was clear that
Gorman had to leave immediately.
"We needed to take action to put McLean and Partners psychiatry on a safe
footing again. That entailed accepting Dr. Gorman's letter of resignation," said
Glynn,, noting that Gorman's job also put him in charge of psychiatry at the
other Harvard-affiliated hospitals in the Partners system, including
Massachusetts General Hospital.
But Gorman contends that, by May 18, he had already sent a letter of resignation
to McLean in which he deliberately avoided disclosing his inappropriate
relationship or suicide attempt in order to protect the hospital's reputation.
"One of Dr. Gorman's primary motivations in doing so was to protect and spare
McLean any embarrassment because he was extremely grateful, and remains so, for
the extraordinary opportunity which they had entrusted to him," said Lou
Colasuonno, a communications consultant representing Gorman. However, when the
hospital was reluctant to let Gorman step down, he reluctantly told them about
the "underlying issue" for his departure, Colasuonno said.
Colasuonno also said that, since Gorman's resignation, he has tried to atone for
his mistakes, even reporting himself to medical regulators in New York for
punishment. In a statement last week, Gorman said that he "voluntarily
acknowledged any mistakes" and "paid a huge personal price" as a result.
It was Gorman's decision to contact the New York Board of Professional Medical
Conduct that finally brought the episode to public attention. Earlier this
month, the board finally acted on what Gorman told them, posting on its website
that his medical license had been indefinitely suspended for "inappropriate
sexual contact" with a patient.
Looking back, Glynn said the presidential search committee talked extensively
with Gorman's colleagues, friends, and associates at Mount Sinai, but no one
suggested that he was engaged in unethical conduct. If there had been a problem,
Glynn said, the hospital had two other finalists they could have selected
instead. He said Partners brought in an outside law firm after Gorman's
departure to review the candidate selection methods for any potential flaws; the
firm found none.
"In this day and age, you have to make the extra effort to look at every nook
and cranny of a major appointment before you proceed," said Glynn. "But, even
with that level of diligence, it doesn't mean you won't get a surprise."
Janet Wohlberg of Williamstown, who runs an Internet-based help line called the
Therapy Exploitation Link Line, said she's not surprised that any rumors about
Gorman's inappropriate relationship did not surface during the presidential
search.
"People don't really want to believe these things about their colleagues,"
Wohlberg said, and, even if people suspect misconduct, they're unlikely to say
anything to a potential employer without proof. "I think the fault lies squarely
with the perpetrator," said Wohlberg.
For his part, Gorman has apologized for past misconduct, but he is already
rebuilding his career. He lists himself as an adjunct professor at Mount Sinai
on publicity materials related to a newly revised version of his book, "The
Essential Guide to Psychiatric Drugs," which hit bookstores in the last few
weeks.
Scott Allen can be reached at allen@globe.com.
Patients are grateful for the altruistic sexual favors Dr. Gorman provided
to
his colleague/patient as chief psychiatrist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York.
Did this play a role in why Harvard chose him to head the Mass/Harvard
psychiatric combine. (Scott Allen, "A doctor's downfall, McLean's fallout,"
Boston Globe, October 14, 2007)
Gorman's case exemplifies institutionalized abuses of academic
professionals. First is the total lack of accountability. Politicians wonder why
young people refuse to assist police in criminal investigations. Do
psychiatrists snitch on their colleagues? Ahem!
Among academics, credentials provide instant credibility and iron-clad
immunity from scrutiny. The MA Medical Board knew "within days." So why was this
kept secret? To protect Gorman from eager patients?
Enjoying immunity from scrutiny with power and privileges, omniscient
psychiatrists with knowledge of the future are more likely to abuse their power.
Showing how distorted the public discourse on psychiatry is, his own
employees offered sympathy for the man who embarrassed them and abused his
power.
This is symptomatic of the psychiatric boondoggle. It is more rule than
exception. Many psychiatrists refuse to provide sexual favors for their love
starved patients. But they abuse their power relationships in other ways. What
do these charlatans know that the rest of the human race does not? Where did
they get their superior knowledge of morality? From doctors like Gorman? His
abuses of power are rewarded by the New York psychiatric establishment. He is
still qualified to teach other psychiatrists so that they can adopt his
standards of care.
Dr. Gorman poster boy for "The Cheating Culture."
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
A doctor's downfall, McLean's fallout
Sex secret kept quiet for a year
Dr. Jack Gorman admitted having sex with a patient.
By Scott Allen,
Boston Globe Staff
October 14, 2007
One Monday morning in April 2006, Dr. Jack M. Gorman, new president of McLean
Hospital in Belmont, simply stopped showing up for work.
For days, increasingly worried hospital officials didn't know what had become of
their leader until, finally, a family member answering a call at his New York
City home revealed that Gorman was in a hospital intensive care unit being
treated for an ailment that the person wouldn't reveal.
So began the spectacular downfall of a highly respected psychiatrist who had
arrived at the Harvard-affiliated hospital just a few months earlier to take on
one of the most influential jobs in mental health care.
Over the next few days, officials at McLean learned that Gorman had, like so
many patients at the renowned psychiatric hospital, attempted suicide. But their
initial sympathy for a sick man turned to horror when they learned, from a legal
document delivered in mid-May, why he had taken such a desperate measure. The
married father of two had brought a shameful secret with him to Massachusetts:
He had engaged in a long-term sexual relationship with a New York patient.
Any romantic involvement with a patient is strictly forbidden in psychiatry, and
Gorman's entanglement would drive him to self- destruction, resignation, and
disgrace - finally spattering McLean's reputation as well when it became public
last week.
PDF OF GORMAN DOCUMENTS: The investigation report, letter to MacLean staff, and
New York suspension order
For more than 16 months, both sides kept the whole episode quiet, saying only
that Gorman had left McLean in May 2006 for undisclosed "personal and medical
reasons." In reality, Gorman stopped coming to work because he had overdosed on
antidepressant pills after his patient, distraught over Gorman's move to
Massachusetts, hired a lawyer and threatened to expose their relationship,
according to people directly involved in the case. Though the pills hadn't
killed him, Gorman needed weeks in the hospital to recuperate.
Now, McLean Hospital is publicly facing the fall-out from one of the more tawdry
chapters in its nearly 200-year history. Last week, Partners HealthCare, the
parent company of McLean, conducted a review of Gorman's brief tenure to
reassure state regulators that he had not sexually abused patients there.
Gorman didn't treat any individual patients at McLean, concluded Partners chief
operating officer Thomas P. Glynn, both because he was too busy as president and
because he only obtained a license to treat Massachusetts patients a few days
before he departed. Glynn said last week's review and an internal investigation
last year did not turn up new allegations against him. In addition, he said that
McLean notified Massachusetts medical regulators about the sexual misconduct
within days of Gorman's departure.
On Friday, hospital officials stressed in a letter to staff and patients that
the hospital did nothing wrong in its handling of Gorman's problems and that the
only apparent victim was the patient, a woman who was also a colleague of Gorman
when he was in New York.
"We appreciate that this may be surprising and disturbing information for many
of you," wrote McLean's chairwoman of the board, Kathleen F. Feldstein, and new
president, Scott L. Rauch. "Our hope is that we can continue to focus on the
important work of caring for our patients, training mental health professionals
and advancing scientific knowledge, as we have always done."
But the leaders of McLean and Partners face lingering questions from the many
people connected to McLean who feel betrayed by their former chief executive:
How could they have hired the doctor in the first place? And why didn't they
speak up earlier about Gorman's misconduct?
Gorman, 55, inspired great hope when McLean and Partners announced that they had
lured him away from New York City's Mount Sinai School of Medicine in October
2005. After a two-year search for someone to take on the newly created job of
top psychiatrist for all of Partners HealthCare, they had landed a highly
respected authority on anxiety disorders, depression, and schizophrenia who had
won numerous awards for his research. He was also a seasoned administrator and
the author of books on psychiatry for a general audience, making him a seemingly
ideal candidate to be the face of both McLean and of Harvard University
psychiatry.
Almost immediately, Gorman struggled to adjust to his new life. His wife and
daughters didn't relocate with him, resulting in lots of travel back and forth
to New York at a time when he was trying to understand the vast research and
treatment program he was now running. At the same time, bureaucratic delays kept
Gorman from obtaining his medical license in Massachusetts until April 5, 2006,
meaning he could not legally prescribe medications for patients at McLean during
the first few months of his tenure.
Still, people said they were impressed by Gorman's intellect and sense of
purpose in his new position. As one staff member put it, "He just radiated
hope."
As a result, when Gorman did not report for work on Monday, April 24, 2006, his
staff did not automatically assume something was amiss. However, Glynn said
worries began to mount when staff members called Gorman's home and did not get a
clear explanation of his whereabouts. "Finally, I think it was maybe at the
beginning of May when we were finally told by someone that he was in the
hospital for personal and health issues," said Glynn.
Over the next few days, McLean and Partners officials learned that Gorman had
attempted suicide and that he was in the hospital for serious gastrointestinal
problems. A person close to Gorman said he had taken numerous tricyclic
antidepressants, 1950s vintage drugs still widely used in the Prozac era that
are known to be poisonous at high doses.
The fact that their new chief executive had attempted to kill himself raised
serious doubts about whether he could continue, Glynn said, but as late as May
16, 2006, the hospital was still treating Gorman as a sick man deserving of
sympathy. At a fund-raiser on that day, McLean chairwoman Feldstein urged the
audience to send Gorman their best wishes for a speedy recovery so that he could
return to McLean.
But immediately after that event, Partners officials said, they received a legal
document outlining Gorman's relationship with the woman dating to 2003. The
document said that the woman had been both a patient and a colleague, traveling
to conferences with Gorman while also getting psychiatric care from him. The
relationship had soured after he accepted the McLean job, and she had hired a
Boston lawyer to file a possible lawsuit.
Suddenly, the suicide attempt made sense and, Glynn said, it was clear that
Gorman had to leave immediately.
"We needed to take action to put McLean and Partners psychiatry on a safe
footing again. That entailed accepting Dr. Gorman's letter of resignation," said
Glynn,, noting that Gorman's job also put him in charge of psychiatry at the
other Harvard-affiliated hospitals in the Partners system, including
Massachusetts General Hospital.
But Gorman contends that, by May 18, he had already sent a letter of resignation
to McLean in which he deliberately avoided disclosing his inappropriate
relationship or suicide attempt in order to protect the hospital's reputation.
"One of Dr. Gorman's primary motivations in doing so was to protect and spare
McLean any embarrassment because he was extremely grateful, and remains so, for
the extraordinary opportunity which they had entrusted to him," said Lou
Colasuonno, a communications consultant representing Gorman. However, when the
hospital was reluctant to let Gorman step down, he reluctantly told them about
the "underlying issue" for his departure, Colasuonno said.
Colasuonno also said that, since Gorman's resignation, he has tried to atone for
his mistakes, even reporting himself to medical regulators in New York for
punishment. In a statement last week, Gorman said that he "voluntarily
acknowledged any mistakes" and "paid a huge personal price" as a result.
It was Gorman's decision to contact the New York Board of Professional Medical
Conduct that finally brought the episode to public attention. Earlier this
month, the board finally acted on what Gorman told them, posting on its website
that his medical license had been indefinitely suspended for "inappropriate
sexual contact" with a patient.
Looking back, Glynn said the presidential search committee talked extensively
with Gorman's colleagues, friends, and associates at Mount Sinai, but no one
suggested that he was engaged in unethical conduct. If there had been a problem,
Glynn said, the hospital had two other finalists they could have selected
instead. He said Partners brought in an outside law firm after Gorman's
departure to review the candidate selection methods for any potential flaws; the
firm found none.
"In this day and age, you have to make the extra effort to look at every nook
and cranny of a major appointment before you proceed," said Glynn. "But, even
with that level of diligence, it doesn't mean you won't get a surprise."
Janet Wohlberg of Williamstown, who runs an Internet-based help line called the
Therapy Exploitation Link Line, said she's not surprised that any rumors about
Gorman's inappropriate relationship did not surface during the presidential
search.
"People don't really want to believe these things about their colleagues,"
Wohlberg said, and, even if people suspect misconduct, they're unlikely to say
anything to a potential employer without proof. "I think the fault lies squarely
with the perpetrator," said Wohlberg.
For his part, Gorman has apologized for past misconduct, but he is already
rebuilding his career. He lists himself as an adjunct professor at Mount Sinai
on publicity materials related to a newly revised version of his book, "The
Essential Guide to Psychiatric Drugs," which hit bookstores in the last few
weeks.
Scott Allen can be reached at allen@globe.com.
October 9, 2007
Mentally Ill Are Not Criminals
Mentally Ill Are Not Criminals
NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly laments the "deinstituionalization of people
who have mental-health problems [and] don't take their medication." (TOM LIDDY,
"RIPPER WARNING," New York Post, October 9, 2007) The police do not respect the
privacy rights of persons accused of mental illness. They show their prejudice
toward such persons slurring all persons accused of these business diseases.
This man's medical history is public, yet police myopia focuses on the
symptoms of the problem.
It is often psychiatric medication that is the cause of violence, drugs
that people are forced to take. If the police want to eliminate violence caused
by psychiatric drugs it must scrutinize the the drug industry and the psychiatry
industry.
Psychiatry is the largest and most dangerous taxpayer funded boondoggle in
the history of man. They make up illnesses and force people to ingest "curing"
chemicals which exacerbate the problem. For what other illness do police powers
enforce diagnoses? Do police force people with rashes or broken legs to get
treatment? The arbitrary business of personal opinions masquerading as
scientific discipline needs to be exposed.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
RIPPER WARNING
New York Post
By TOM LIDDY
October 9, 2007 -- A relative of the psycho slasher who staged a bloody rampage
on the East Side said last night he warned cops hours before the attack that the
suspect was sick and needed to be hospitalized.
Alexander Flowers said he last saw his nephew, Lee Coleman, 38, acting strangely
in Co-op City about 4 a.m. Saturday, some seven hours before the bloodshed.
Three hours later, he said, he said he got on the phone to Co-op City security
and to police in the 45th Precinct to alert them that Coleman was sick and
should be hospitalized.
He said two uniformed officers came to his house at around 8 a.m., and two hours
later, two detectives showed up.
All four officers, he said, told them they couldn't help.
"They said he [Coleman] wasn't a child or a senior citizen. [A detective] told
me he couldn't take a report because of that fact," Flowers said. "They should
have listened to me and taken heed of what I was saying. If they had responded
in ample time . . . it could have been prevented. They didn't respond."
Officials at Co-op City could not be reached.
Police would not say whether officers any interviewed Flowers before the
knifing. They said only they got a missing-person's report about Coleman at
10:45 a.m.
Coleman's brother, Craig, who lives in Atlanta, said that in the hours before
the attack, Lee had been babbling about "demons."
"He kept telling me the demons were trying to get him, to kill him, to hurt
him," Craig said. "He kept talking to me as if I could understand him. He kept
saying, 'Don't you feel me? I'm trying to give you telepathy.' I knew he was
having a breakdown."
He said Coleman hung up on him and turned off his phone.
Cops said Coleman snapped at around 11 a.m. Saturday, when he stole four knives
from a restaurant near East 35th Street and Second Avenue, slashed an employee,
and then hacked away at a psychologist walking her dog.
Amarjit Singh, the restaurant worker, and Susan Barron, 67, were in serious
condition at Bellevue Hospital, but both were improving yesterday.
Coleman was shot by off-duty cop Gregory Chin, who had been eating at a nearby
diner.
"I'm just so glad he didn't kill her," Flowers said. "I don't think [Coleman]
could live with himself if he did that."
Sources said Coleman quit taking his medication because it was too expensive.
"This is a problem the Police Department has faced for many years," said Police
Commissioner Ray Kelly. "There has been a huge deinstitutionalization of people
who have mental-health problems. They've been shifted to medication. What
happens when people don't take their medication is they act out and it falls on
the Police Department to address the problem."
Additional reporting by Leonardo Blair
tom.liddy@nypost.com
NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly laments the "deinstituionalization of people
who have mental-health problems [and] don't take their medication." (TOM LIDDY,
"RIPPER WARNING," New York Post, October 9, 2007) The police do not respect the
privacy rights of persons accused of mental illness. They show their prejudice
toward such persons slurring all persons accused of these business diseases.
This man's medical history is public, yet police myopia focuses on the
symptoms of the problem.
It is often psychiatric medication that is the cause of violence, drugs
that people are forced to take. If the police want to eliminate violence caused
by psychiatric drugs it must scrutinize the the drug industry and the psychiatry
industry.
Psychiatry is the largest and most dangerous taxpayer funded boondoggle in
the history of man. They make up illnesses and force people to ingest "curing"
chemicals which exacerbate the problem. For what other illness do police powers
enforce diagnoses? Do police force people with rashes or broken legs to get
treatment? The arbitrary business of personal opinions masquerading as
scientific discipline needs to be exposed.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
RIPPER WARNING
New York Post
By TOM LIDDY
October 9, 2007 -- A relative of the psycho slasher who staged a bloody rampage
on the East Side said last night he warned cops hours before the attack that the
suspect was sick and needed to be hospitalized.
Alexander Flowers said he last saw his nephew, Lee Coleman, 38, acting strangely
in Co-op City about 4 a.m. Saturday, some seven hours before the bloodshed.
Three hours later, he said, he said he got on the phone to Co-op City security
and to police in the 45th Precinct to alert them that Coleman was sick and
should be hospitalized.
He said two uniformed officers came to his house at around 8 a.m., and two hours
later, two detectives showed up.
All four officers, he said, told them they couldn't help.
"They said he [Coleman] wasn't a child or a senior citizen. [A detective] told
me he couldn't take a report because of that fact," Flowers said. "They should
have listened to me and taken heed of what I was saying. If they had responded
in ample time . . . it could have been prevented. They didn't respond."
Officials at Co-op City could not be reached.
Police would not say whether officers any interviewed Flowers before the
knifing. They said only they got a missing-person's report about Coleman at
10:45 a.m.
Coleman's brother, Craig, who lives in Atlanta, said that in the hours before
the attack, Lee had been babbling about "demons."
"He kept telling me the demons were trying to get him, to kill him, to hurt
him," Craig said. "He kept talking to me as if I could understand him. He kept
saying, 'Don't you feel me? I'm trying to give you telepathy.' I knew he was
having a breakdown."
He said Coleman hung up on him and turned off his phone.
Cops said Coleman snapped at around 11 a.m. Saturday, when he stole four knives
from a restaurant near East 35th Street and Second Avenue, slashed an employee,
and then hacked away at a psychologist walking her dog.
Amarjit Singh, the restaurant worker, and Susan Barron, 67, were in serious
condition at Bellevue Hospital, but both were improving yesterday.
Coleman was shot by off-duty cop Gregory Chin, who had been eating at a nearby
diner.
"I'm just so glad he didn't kill her," Flowers said. "I don't think [Coleman]
could live with himself if he did that."
Sources said Coleman quit taking his medication because it was too expensive.
"This is a problem the Police Department has faced for many years," said Police
Commissioner Ray Kelly. "There has been a huge deinstitutionalization of people
who have mental-health problems. They've been shifted to medication. What
happens when people don't take their medication is they act out and it falls on
the Police Department to address the problem."
Additional reporting by Leonardo Blair
tom.liddy@nypost.com
October 7, 2007
Legal Aid for Detainees
Legal Aid for Detainees
The headline for this story conflicts with the facts reported. (Farah
Stockman, "Potshot at Guantanamo lawyers backfires, Big firms laud free legal
aid for detainees," Boston Globe, January 29, 2007) You report "Doris Tennant
and Ellen Lubell have collected $7,000 in the past three weeks toward the
estimated $20,000 they expect to spend defending an Algerian detainee known as
Number 744."
If they are raising funds to pay for the legal work, it is not free and it
is not pro bono as Emily Rooney said on Tuesday March 27, 2007.
Aside from the financial distortions I am perplexed at why there is so much
energy available from attorneys who recruit these attorneys anxious to represent
detainees. Even Rooney no right-winger, suggested that there are many domestic
prisoners who live very similarly to the detainees who are accused of making war
on the United States and not being a part of any identifiable army.
Lubell and Tennant said that the detainees are fed through a slit on their
doors and must listen to prayers through the same slit. But they did not mention
the attacks on the guards, regular US Army soldiers, not corrections officers.
My question is for both Rooney and the Newton law partners. Why are there
no similar efforts to recruit lawyers to represent persons with disabilities who
have not been convicted of any crime nor have they been charged with making war
on the US. They are simply abused by police, prosecutors, politicians, academic
researchers, human services corporations, social services professionals, lawyers
and ordinary citizens who like to exploit and to abuse vulnerable persons.
I understand that the Boston Globe earns advertising revenue from the many
human services corporations. But Rooney appears on publicly funded television.
Nonetheless, Rooney and WGBH's president expressed the same attitudes toward
persons with disabilities as did Richard Gilman and the series of Globe editors.
They all see disability rights as a health care issue. They are unable to see
persons with disabilities as equal human beings with rights guaranteed to them
as strictly as to other citizens.
Why do these lawyers work so very hard to protect rights of persons with
questionable standing to them? Why are people innocent of any wrongdoing being
ignored by these and other allegedly concerned legal officers of the court?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Potshot at Guantanamo lawyers backfires
Big firms laud free legal aid for detainees
By Farah Stockman,
Boston Globe Staff
January 29, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Two weeks after a senior Pentagon official suggested that
corporations should pressure their law firms to stop assisting detainees at
Guantanamo Bay, major companies have turned the tables on the Pentagon and
issued statements supporting the law firms' work on behalf of terrorism
suspects.
The corporate support for the lawyers comes as law associations and members of
Congress have expressed outrage at the remarks of Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Detainee Affairs Charles D. "Cully" Stimson on Jan. 11.
In a radio interview, Stimson stated the names of a dozen law firms that
volunteer their services to represent detainees, and he suggested that the chief
executives of the firms' corporate clients would make the lawyers "choose
between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms."
He said he expected the newly public list of law firms that do work at
Guantanamo Bay to spark a cycle of negative publicity for them. Instead, Stimson
himself became the center of nationwide criticism and later apologized for the
remarks.
The episode has become an embarrassing chapter in the Pentagon's long-running
battle with the detainees' lawyers and appears to have spurred public support
for the legal rights of the detainees, nearly 400 of whom just marked the start
of their sixth year of incarceration at the base.
Charles Rudnick , a spokesman for Boston Scientific Corp., said the company
supports the decision of its law firm, WilmerHale, to represent six men who were
arrested in Bosnia in 2001 "because our legal system depends on vigorous
advocacy for even the most unpopular causes."
Brackett Denniston, senior vice president and general counsel of General
Electric, said the company strongly disagrees with the suggestion that it
discriminate against law firms that do such work. "Justice is served when there
is quality representation even for the unpopular," Denniston said in a
statement.
Verizon issued a similar statement.
The lawyers have welcomed these expressions of solidarity from their paying
clients.
"It would seem [the Pentagon] made a miscalculation," said Stephen Oleskey , an
attorney at WilmerHale in Boston who has traveled to Guantanamo Bay seven times
since he took up the case in 2004. "We haven't had any clients call up and say,
'We are really deeply disturbed that you are advocating for fair hearings.' The
amount of support [we have gotten] has been heartening."
He said a committee at WilmerHale swiftly made the decision in 2004 to offer
free help to the detainees when a request went out from the Center for
Constitutional Rights, a New York-based nonprofit legal organization, which had
filed a petition in federal court on behalf of the detainees.
"As time has gone on, it has become plainer that it is an important issue for
our justice system," Oleskey said. "People have been more and more interested in
hearing about it. We have been asked to speak at universities, human rights
groups, and churches."
Michael Ratner , president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said that in
his early days of defending Guantanamo detainees he got hundreds of hate letters
from the public every time he spoke about the issue on television. But now, he
said, he receives only positive feedback, especially since Stimson's remarks.
"They miscalculated, that's for sure," said Ratner, who helps coordinate 500
lawyers and 120 law firms across the country to defend the detainees.
Support for the defense of Guantanamo detainees has become so widely accepted
that two Newton attorneys are defraying the cost of their trips to Guantanamo
Bay by collecting donations from the public.
Doris Tennant and Ellen Lubell have collected $7,000 in the past three weeks
toward the estimated $20,000 they expect to spend defending an Algerian detainee
known as Number 744. It is difficult to tell whether the controversy has made
fund-raising easier, Tennant said, because Stimson's remarks coincided with
their appeal for funds. But she said many of her supporters made reference to
Stimson as they voiced their support and sent in checks.
"It has been quite an outpouring," said Tennant, who hopes to make her first
visit to Guantanamo Bay next week.
That support is not what Stimson predicted when he gave a radio interview Jan.
11, the fifth anniversary of the day the detainees were brought to the base.
Stimson told the Washington-based Federal News Radio that the cause of detainees
was "not popular" with the American people and that the list of major law firms
representing the detainees was "shocking."
"I think quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are
representing the very terrorists who hurt their bottom line back in 2001, those
CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or
representing reputable firms," he said.
In the interview, he named about a dozen firms, including WilmerHale. He said
that corporations would become outraged when they realized that their legal fees
were subsidizing this kind of pro bono work.
In addition to the interview, a Wall Street Journal columnist quoted an unnamed
US official making similar remarks in a column that also included the names of
several top firms.
Now, some lawyers for detainees are accusing the Pentagon of an organized effort
to generate bad publicity for the firms.
Baltimore-based lawyer William J. Murphy , who represents a Kuwaiti detainee,
has filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records of communications
between senior Pentagon officials and the media before the Jan. 11 interview in
a bid to uncover evidence of a smear campaign.
Some lawyers said publicizing the names of the law firms had achieved one of
Stimson's objectives -- distracting attention from the roughly 395 men who
remain imprisoned.
"It backfired to the extent that they didn't get the kind of support that they
were hoping," said Neil McGaraghan , a Boston-based attorney at Bingham
McCutchen, which represents a group of ethnic Uighurs from China at Guantanamo
Bay.
"But to the extent that it has drawn attention away from Guantanamo and focused
it on the lawyers, it has worked."
The headline for this story conflicts with the facts reported. (Farah
Stockman, "Potshot at Guantanamo lawyers backfires, Big firms laud free legal
aid for detainees," Boston Globe, January 29, 2007) You report "Doris Tennant
and Ellen Lubell have collected $7,000 in the past three weeks toward the
estimated $20,000 they expect to spend defending an Algerian detainee known as
Number 744."
If they are raising funds to pay for the legal work, it is not free and it
is not pro bono as Emily Rooney said on Tuesday March 27, 2007.
Aside from the financial distortions I am perplexed at why there is so much
energy available from attorneys who recruit these attorneys anxious to represent
detainees. Even Rooney no right-winger, suggested that there are many domestic
prisoners who live very similarly to the detainees who are accused of making war
on the United States and not being a part of any identifiable army.
Lubell and Tennant said that the detainees are fed through a slit on their
doors and must listen to prayers through the same slit. But they did not mention
the attacks on the guards, regular US Army soldiers, not corrections officers.
My question is for both Rooney and the Newton law partners. Why are there
no similar efforts to recruit lawyers to represent persons with disabilities who
have not been convicted of any crime nor have they been charged with making war
on the US. They are simply abused by police, prosecutors, politicians, academic
researchers, human services corporations, social services professionals, lawyers
and ordinary citizens who like to exploit and to abuse vulnerable persons.
I understand that the Boston Globe earns advertising revenue from the many
human services corporations. But Rooney appears on publicly funded television.
Nonetheless, Rooney and WGBH's president expressed the same attitudes toward
persons with disabilities as did Richard Gilman and the series of Globe editors.
They all see disability rights as a health care issue. They are unable to see
persons with disabilities as equal human beings with rights guaranteed to them
as strictly as to other citizens.
Why do these lawyers work so very hard to protect rights of persons with
questionable standing to them? Why are people innocent of any wrongdoing being
ignored by these and other allegedly concerned legal officers of the court?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Potshot at Guantanamo lawyers backfires
Big firms laud free legal aid for detainees
By Farah Stockman,
Boston Globe Staff
January 29, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Two weeks after a senior Pentagon official suggested that
corporations should pressure their law firms to stop assisting detainees at
Guantanamo Bay, major companies have turned the tables on the Pentagon and
issued statements supporting the law firms' work on behalf of terrorism
suspects.
The corporate support for the lawyers comes as law associations and members of
Congress have expressed outrage at the remarks of Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Detainee Affairs Charles D. "Cully" Stimson on Jan. 11.
In a radio interview, Stimson stated the names of a dozen law firms that
volunteer their services to represent detainees, and he suggested that the chief
executives of the firms' corporate clients would make the lawyers "choose
between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms."
He said he expected the newly public list of law firms that do work at
Guantanamo Bay to spark a cycle of negative publicity for them. Instead, Stimson
himself became the center of nationwide criticism and later apologized for the
remarks.
The episode has become an embarrassing chapter in the Pentagon's long-running
battle with the detainees' lawyers and appears to have spurred public support
for the legal rights of the detainees, nearly 400 of whom just marked the start
of their sixth year of incarceration at the base.
Charles Rudnick , a spokesman for Boston Scientific Corp., said the company
supports the decision of its law firm, WilmerHale, to represent six men who were
arrested in Bosnia in 2001 "because our legal system depends on vigorous
advocacy for even the most unpopular causes."
Brackett Denniston, senior vice president and general counsel of General
Electric, said the company strongly disagrees with the suggestion that it
discriminate against law firms that do such work. "Justice is served when there
is quality representation even for the unpopular," Denniston said in a
statement.
Verizon issued a similar statement.
The lawyers have welcomed these expressions of solidarity from their paying
clients.
"It would seem [the Pentagon] made a miscalculation," said Stephen Oleskey , an
attorney at WilmerHale in Boston who has traveled to Guantanamo Bay seven times
since he took up the case in 2004. "We haven't had any clients call up and say,
'We are really deeply disturbed that you are advocating for fair hearings.' The
amount of support [we have gotten] has been heartening."
He said a committee at WilmerHale swiftly made the decision in 2004 to offer
free help to the detainees when a request went out from the Center for
Constitutional Rights, a New York-based nonprofit legal organization, which had
filed a petition in federal court on behalf of the detainees.
"As time has gone on, it has become plainer that it is an important issue for
our justice system," Oleskey said. "People have been more and more interested in
hearing about it. We have been asked to speak at universities, human rights
groups, and churches."
Michael Ratner , president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said that in
his early days of defending Guantanamo detainees he got hundreds of hate letters
from the public every time he spoke about the issue on television. But now, he
said, he receives only positive feedback, especially since Stimson's remarks.
"They miscalculated, that's for sure," said Ratner, who helps coordinate 500
lawyers and 120 law firms across the country to defend the detainees.
Support for the defense of Guantanamo detainees has become so widely accepted
that two Newton attorneys are defraying the cost of their trips to Guantanamo
Bay by collecting donations from the public.
Doris Tennant and Ellen Lubell have collected $7,000 in the past three weeks
toward the estimated $20,000 they expect to spend defending an Algerian detainee
known as Number 744. It is difficult to tell whether the controversy has made
fund-raising easier, Tennant said, because Stimson's remarks coincided with
their appeal for funds. But she said many of her supporters made reference to
Stimson as they voiced their support and sent in checks.
"It has been quite an outpouring," said Tennant, who hopes to make her first
visit to Guantanamo Bay next week.
That support is not what Stimson predicted when he gave a radio interview Jan.
11, the fifth anniversary of the day the detainees were brought to the base.
Stimson told the Washington-based Federal News Radio that the cause of detainees
was "not popular" with the American people and that the list of major law firms
representing the detainees was "shocking."
"I think quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are
representing the very terrorists who hurt their bottom line back in 2001, those
CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or
representing reputable firms," he said.
In the interview, he named about a dozen firms, including WilmerHale. He said
that corporations would become outraged when they realized that their legal fees
were subsidizing this kind of pro bono work.
In addition to the interview, a Wall Street Journal columnist quoted an unnamed
US official making similar remarks in a column that also included the names of
several top firms.
Now, some lawyers for detainees are accusing the Pentagon of an organized effort
to generate bad publicity for the firms.
Baltimore-based lawyer William J. Murphy , who represents a Kuwaiti detainee,
has filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records of communications
between senior Pentagon officials and the media before the Jan. 11 interview in
a bid to uncover evidence of a smear campaign.
Some lawyers said publicizing the names of the law firms had achieved one of
Stimson's objectives -- distracting attention from the roughly 395 men who
remain imprisoned.
"It backfired to the extent that they didn't get the kind of support that they
were hoping," said Neil McGaraghan , a Boston-based attorney at Bingham
McCutchen, which represents a group of ethnic Uighurs from China at Guantanamo
Bay.
"But to the extent that it has drawn attention away from Guantanamo and focused
it on the lawyers, it has worked."
Cities Are the Answer
Cities Are the Answer
The Cambridge City Manager sees cities as collections of energy users.
(Douglas Foy and Robert Healy, "Cities are the answer," Boston Globe, April 4,
2007) It explains his destructive policies toward trees and wildlife. He favors
technology over nature. He minimized green public open spaces.
This essay indicates the Manager's anti-human policies. He digitizes people
dehumanizing them into a collective. He runs Cambridge like a for profit
business.
Vulnerable persons suffer under Healy, who shows little concern for their
quiet desperate struggle to enjoy life. The focus here is on an academic elite
exercise studying city life. All Robert Moses without any Jane Jacobs.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cities are the answer
By Douglas Foy and Robert Healy
Boston Globe
April 4, 2007
MANY OF the world's most difficult environmental challenges can be addressed and
solved by cities. This may come as a surprise to those who think of
environmental issues largely in the context of wild places and open spaces.
Cities, often congested, dense, and enormous consumers of resources, would not
be the place one might first turn for environmental solutions. But in fact,
cities are inherently
the "greenest" of all places. They are much more efficient in their use of
energy, water, and land than suburbs. They provide transportation services in a
remarkably equitable and democratic fashion. They may be the best of all places
for seniors to grow old. Development in cities helps to save natural areas and
open space by relieving growth pressures on the countryside. And cities will,
without question,
be the pivotal players in fashioning solutions to the growing problem of climate
change.
New York City, for example, turns out to be the most energy efficient place in
America. Yes, it houses 8.2 million citizens, and uses an enormous amount of
energy to do so. Its electrical load, more than 12,000 megawatts, is as large as
all of Massachusetts. Yet because the buildings are dense and thus more
efficiently heated and cooled, and because 85 percent of all trips in Manhattan
are on foot, bike, or transit, New York City uses dramatically less energy to
serve each of its citizens than does a state like Massachusetts. Indeed, it uses
less energy, on a per capita basis, than any other state in America. When one
considers that another 750,000 commuters also enter New York every day to work,
and use large amounts of energy in their daily business there but don't even
count in the per capita energy calculation, the city's efficiency performance is
even more remarkable.
Carbon dioxide, the dominant greenhouse gas and the primary cause of global
climate change, comes largely from the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal,
oil, gasoline, and natural gas. Nearly half of all the energy those fuels
produce is
used in buildings -- heating, cooling, and lighting our homes, factories, and
offices. Another third of all the energy is used for transportation, primarily
fueling automobiles, trucks, and transit fleets.
In order to address the challenge of climate change, it is imperative that we
make both buildings and transportation vastly more energy efficient. And cities
are the place to start. In a way, cities are the Saudi Arabia of energy
efficiency, vast mines of potential energy savings that dwarf most of the supply
options our country possesses.
It is with that efficiency goal in mind that the city of Cambridge and the
Kendall Foundation have developed for Cambridge the most aggressive energy
efficiency program ever deployed in a city in the United States. The outlines of
the program were announced on March 29. It will involve the investment of nearly
$100 million, largely raised from private capital sources, in buildings of all
types throughout the city. We will invest in energy efficiency measures in
homes, condos,
apartments, offices, hotels, institutions, hospitals, factories, and schools. We
will measure and verify the savings, and document the carbon dioxide reductions
and other environmental gains. And all of this will be done with the energy
savings paying for the cost of the program, without the need for any government
subsidies.
By mining Cambridge's efficiency opportunities, the city will become more
competitive, save money for its citizens and its businesses, add hundreds of
quality jobs, help build an efficiency industry that can be the pride of
Massachusetts, produce a model that can be replicated in cities all over the
state and the nation, and add its weight to a solution for global climate
change.
The old paradigm of the pollution-filled city as a blight on the landscape, and
the leafy-green suburbs with pristine lawns as the ideal, is outdated and does
not lead us to a future of energy independence, clean air, and a stable climate.
Cities are the best hope to realize our need for a bright, sustainable, and
promising future.
Douglas Foy, former secretary of the Office of Commonwealth Development, is
president of DIF Enterprises. Robert Healy is city manager of Cambridge.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/04/
cities_are_the_answer/
The Cambridge City Manager sees cities as collections of energy users.
(Douglas Foy and Robert Healy, "Cities are the answer," Boston Globe, April 4,
2007) It explains his destructive policies toward trees and wildlife. He favors
technology over nature. He minimized green public open spaces.
This essay indicates the Manager's anti-human policies. He digitizes people
dehumanizing them into a collective. He runs Cambridge like a for profit
business.
Vulnerable persons suffer under Healy, who shows little concern for their
quiet desperate struggle to enjoy life. The focus here is on an academic elite
exercise studying city life. All Robert Moses without any Jane Jacobs.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cities are the answer
By Douglas Foy and Robert Healy
Boston Globe
April 4, 2007
MANY OF the world's most difficult environmental challenges can be addressed and
solved by cities. This may come as a surprise to those who think of
environmental issues largely in the context of wild places and open spaces.
Cities, often congested, dense, and enormous consumers of resources, would not
be the place one might first turn for environmental solutions. But in fact,
cities are inherently
the "greenest" of all places. They are much more efficient in their use of
energy, water, and land than suburbs. They provide transportation services in a
remarkably equitable and democratic fashion. They may be the best of all places
for seniors to grow old. Development in cities helps to save natural areas and
open space by relieving growth pressures on the countryside. And cities will,
without question,
be the pivotal players in fashioning solutions to the growing problem of climate
change.
New York City, for example, turns out to be the most energy efficient place in
America. Yes, it houses 8.2 million citizens, and uses an enormous amount of
energy to do so. Its electrical load, more than 12,000 megawatts, is as large as
all of Massachusetts. Yet because the buildings are dense and thus more
efficiently heated and cooled, and because 85 percent of all trips in Manhattan
are on foot, bike, or transit, New York City uses dramatically less energy to
serve each of its citizens than does a state like Massachusetts. Indeed, it uses
less energy, on a per capita basis, than any other state in America. When one
considers that another 750,000 commuters also enter New York every day to work,
and use large amounts of energy in their daily business there but don't even
count in the per capita energy calculation, the city's efficiency performance is
even more remarkable.
Carbon dioxide, the dominant greenhouse gas and the primary cause of global
climate change, comes largely from the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal,
oil, gasoline, and natural gas. Nearly half of all the energy those fuels
produce is
used in buildings -- heating, cooling, and lighting our homes, factories, and
offices. Another third of all the energy is used for transportation, primarily
fueling automobiles, trucks, and transit fleets.
In order to address the challenge of climate change, it is imperative that we
make both buildings and transportation vastly more energy efficient. And cities
are the place to start. In a way, cities are the Saudi Arabia of energy
efficiency, vast mines of potential energy savings that dwarf most of the supply
options our country possesses.
It is with that efficiency goal in mind that the city of Cambridge and the
Kendall Foundation have developed for Cambridge the most aggressive energy
efficiency program ever deployed in a city in the United States. The outlines of
the program were announced on March 29. It will involve the investment of nearly
$100 million, largely raised from private capital sources, in buildings of all
types throughout the city. We will invest in energy efficiency measures in
homes, condos,
apartments, offices, hotels, institutions, hospitals, factories, and schools. We
will measure and verify the savings, and document the carbon dioxide reductions
and other environmental gains. And all of this will be done with the energy
savings paying for the cost of the program, without the need for any government
subsidies.
By mining Cambridge's efficiency opportunities, the city will become more
competitive, save money for its citizens and its businesses, add hundreds of
quality jobs, help build an efficiency industry that can be the pride of
Massachusetts, produce a model that can be replicated in cities all over the
state and the nation, and add its weight to a solution for global climate
change.
The old paradigm of the pollution-filled city as a blight on the landscape, and
the leafy-green suburbs with pristine lawns as the ideal, is outdated and does
not lead us to a future of energy independence, clean air, and a stable climate.
Cities are the best hope to realize our need for a bright, sustainable, and
promising future.
Douglas Foy, former secretary of the Office of Commonwealth Development, is
president of DIF Enterprises. Robert Healy is city manager of Cambridge.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/04/
cities_are_the_answer/
Combating Violence
Combating Violence
Adrian Walker says, Cadillac Deval "used his biography to illustrate who
he was politically." Huh? (Adrian Walker, "A crime of omission," Boston Globe,
April 5, 2007) The Governor is a Harvard corporate lawyer masquerading as a
civil rights lawyer. If Walker is unaware of that he is unaware of the problem.
Fearing to testify is one thing, an emotional response. The rational reason
that most young people refuse to cooperate with police is two-fold. First they
cannot trust the police. 19 people were killed when they went to the FBI to
report James Bulger's crimes. When a crime victim goes to the police their first
reaction is to investigate the victim.
Moreover we see and hear the loud silence from the politicians about police
corruption. We see and hear how politicians remain unaccountable for their
criminal actions. So what are the role models showing young people? Hear no
evil, see no evil and speak no evil. Young people learn faster than older
people.
Until the politicians and the police recognize that they are the problem
this cycle of violence will continue to escalate and will never be solved.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
A crime of omission
By Adrian Walker,
Boston Globe Columnist
April 5, 2007
Some day soon, with the same sense of urgency that has characterized this
administration to date, Governor Deval Patrick plans to roll out a plan to
address violent crime in Massachusetts.
While neighborhoods in Boston are cowering in fear of violent criminals, Patrick
has had almost nothing to say about the situation. He did break his silence
Tuesday to say, after meeting Mayor Thomas M. Menino at City Hall, that he loves
the city, and the mayor for that matter, and is looking for the money to express
his affection.
Wonderful. I'm sure Menino loves him, too.
Patrick's reticence is surprising, to say the least. As we were told frequently
when he was a candidate, he grew up on the South Side of Chicago. He has
personally been a victim of gang violence. He said he was the only candidate who
had ever prosecuted anyone.
Now, just a few miles from the State House, even less than that from Patrick's
home in Milton, people in Dorchester are wondering whether someone with the
intention of settling a beef is going to board the bus or the MBTA train they
are riding. They wonder if that someone will have a loaded gun and whether they
will be sitting too close to the intended target. They wonder what anyone is
doing to protect them.
That might have sounded melodramatic a few months ago, even a few weeks ago. But
not now, not after someone climbed aboard a rush-hour bus at the corner of
Washington Street and Columbia Road last Friday to commit murder at point-blank
range, one of a string of recent killings that have shocked the city.
People in government are fond of saying of crime, "We know what works." Clearly,
it isn't that simple, because what they are doing isn't working.
But there are some things government can do, and the governor can be a catalyst
for all of them. For one thing, the state needs to do more to protect witnesses.
The reasons that potential witnesses aren't eager to cooperate with law
enforcement are complicated, but one of the major factors is plain fear.
Last year, the Legislature, after protracted debate, passed a measure to help
give witnesses protection. It isn't perfect -- you don't get a new identity and
a one-way ticket out of sight -- but it has been useful. This program needs to
be fine-tuned and made permanent.
Special grand juries have turned out to be useful tools for making people tell
police and prosecutors what they know. They, too, are living on borrowed time;
funding runs out in October.
"It can't end in October," Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley told me
this week. He points to the quadruple homicide on Bourneside Street as a case
that might never have been broken without the program.
One problem Patrick is well aware of, according to one senior aide, is the flow
of guns into the state, often via the interstate from New York. As Menino has
long argued, stemming this traffic will require regional cooperation. Patrick
and his counterparts in New York and Connecticut need to find a room someplace
-- don't they all like the Berkshires? -- and figure out what they can do
cooperatively to combat gun trafficking.
Not least, Patrick needs to reassure his jittery constituents that the state is
a partner in this for the long haul and not by saying, "I'm looking under the
mattress for a few bucks, and I think I just might find them."
He needs to let Boston residents know that this is not just their problem and
that the state government will not rest until their fears are put to rest.
Mostly, he needs to mean it.
What made Patrick such an appealing candidate was the way he was able to meld
the personal and the political, the way he used his biography to illustrate who
he was politically. Crime, specifically, was one of the areas where those lines
converged.
This is the last issue on which he can remain nearly silent.
Adrian Walker is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at walker@globe.com.
Beginning next week, his column will appear on Tuesdays and Fridays.
Adrian Walker says, Cadillac Deval "used his biography to illustrate who
he was politically." Huh? (Adrian Walker, "A crime of omission," Boston Globe,
April 5, 2007) The Governor is a Harvard corporate lawyer masquerading as a
civil rights lawyer. If Walker is unaware of that he is unaware of the problem.
Fearing to testify is one thing, an emotional response. The rational reason
that most young people refuse to cooperate with police is two-fold. First they
cannot trust the police. 19 people were killed when they went to the FBI to
report James Bulger's crimes. When a crime victim goes to the police their first
reaction is to investigate the victim.
Moreover we see and hear the loud silence from the politicians about police
corruption. We see and hear how politicians remain unaccountable for their
criminal actions. So what are the role models showing young people? Hear no
evil, see no evil and speak no evil. Young people learn faster than older
people.
Until the politicians and the police recognize that they are the problem
this cycle of violence will continue to escalate and will never be solved.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
A crime of omission
By Adrian Walker,
Boston Globe Columnist
April 5, 2007
Some day soon, with the same sense of urgency that has characterized this
administration to date, Governor Deval Patrick plans to roll out a plan to
address violent crime in Massachusetts.
While neighborhoods in Boston are cowering in fear of violent criminals, Patrick
has had almost nothing to say about the situation. He did break his silence
Tuesday to say, after meeting Mayor Thomas M. Menino at City Hall, that he loves
the city, and the mayor for that matter, and is looking for the money to express
his affection.
Wonderful. I'm sure Menino loves him, too.
Patrick's reticence is surprising, to say the least. As we were told frequently
when he was a candidate, he grew up on the South Side of Chicago. He has
personally been a victim of gang violence. He said he was the only candidate who
had ever prosecuted anyone.
Now, just a few miles from the State House, even less than that from Patrick's
home in Milton, people in Dorchester are wondering whether someone with the
intention of settling a beef is going to board the bus or the MBTA train they
are riding. They wonder if that someone will have a loaded gun and whether they
will be sitting too close to the intended target. They wonder what anyone is
doing to protect them.
That might have sounded melodramatic a few months ago, even a few weeks ago. But
not now, not after someone climbed aboard a rush-hour bus at the corner of
Washington Street and Columbia Road last Friday to commit murder at point-blank
range, one of a string of recent killings that have shocked the city.
People in government are fond of saying of crime, "We know what works." Clearly,
it isn't that simple, because what they are doing isn't working.
But there are some things government can do, and the governor can be a catalyst
for all of them. For one thing, the state needs to do more to protect witnesses.
The reasons that potential witnesses aren't eager to cooperate with law
enforcement are complicated, but one of the major factors is plain fear.
Last year, the Legislature, after protracted debate, passed a measure to help
give witnesses protection. It isn't perfect -- you don't get a new identity and
a one-way ticket out of sight -- but it has been useful. This program needs to
be fine-tuned and made permanent.
Special grand juries have turned out to be useful tools for making people tell
police and prosecutors what they know. They, too, are living on borrowed time;
funding runs out in October.
"It can't end in October," Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley told me
this week. He points to the quadruple homicide on Bourneside Street as a case
that might never have been broken without the program.
One problem Patrick is well aware of, according to one senior aide, is the flow
of guns into the state, often via the interstate from New York. As Menino has
long argued, stemming this traffic will require regional cooperation. Patrick
and his counterparts in New York and Connecticut need to find a room someplace
-- don't they all like the Berkshires? -- and figure out what they can do
cooperatively to combat gun trafficking.
Not least, Patrick needs to reassure his jittery constituents that the state is
a partner in this for the long haul and not by saying, "I'm looking under the
mattress for a few bucks, and I think I just might find them."
He needs to let Boston residents know that this is not just their problem and
that the state government will not rest until their fears are put to rest.
Mostly, he needs to mean it.
What made Patrick such an appealing candidate was the way he was able to meld
the personal and the political, the way he used his biography to illustrate who
he was politically. Crime, specifically, was one of the areas where those lines
converged.
This is the last issue on which he can remain nearly silent.
Adrian Walker is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at walker@globe.com.
Beginning next week, his column will appear on Tuesdays and Fridays.
Crime of Omission?
Crime of Omission?
Adrian Walker says, Cadillac Deval "used his biography to illustrate who
he was politically." Huh? (Adrian Walker, "A crime of omission," Boston Globe,
April 5, 2007) The Governor is a Harvard corporate lawyer masquerading as a
civil rights lawyer. If Walker is unaware of that he is unaware of the problem.
Fearing to testify is one thing, an emotional response. The rational reason
that most young people refuse to cooperate with police is two-fold. First they
cannot trust the police. 19 people were killed when they went to the FBI to
report James Bulger's crimes. When a crime victim goes to the police their first
reaction is to investigate the victim.
Moreover we see and hear the loud silence from the politicians about police
corruption. We see and hear how politicians remain unaccountable for their
criminal actions. So what are the role models showing young people? Hear no
evil, see no evil and speak no evil. Young people learn faster than older
people.
Until the politicians and the police recognize that they are the problem
this cycle of violence will continue to escalate and will never be solved.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
A crime of omission
By Adrian Walker,
Bostonh Globe Columnist
April 5, 2007
Some day soon, with the same sense of urgency that has characterized this
administration to date, Governor Deval Patrick plans to roll out a plan to
address violent crime in Massachusetts.
While neighborhoods in Boston are cowering in fear of violent criminals, Patrick
has had almost nothing to say about the situation. He did break his silence
Tuesday to say, after meeting Mayor Thomas M. Menino at City Hall, that he loves
the city, and the mayor for that matter, and is looking for the money to express
his affection.
Wonderful. I'm sure Menino loves him, too.
Patrick's reticence is surprising, to say the least. As we were told frequently
when he was a candidate, he grew up on the South Side of Chicago. He has
personally been a victim of gang violence. He said he was the only candidate who
had ever prosecuted anyone.
Now, just a few miles from the State House, even less than that from Patrick's
home in Milton, people in Dorchester are wondering whether someone with the
intention of settling a beef is going to board the bus or the MBTA train they
are riding. They wonder if that someone will have a loaded gun and whether they
will be sitting too close to the intended target. They wonder what anyone is
doing to protect them.
That might have sounded melodramatic a few months ago, even a few weeks ago. But
not now, not after someone climbed aboard a rush-hour bus at the corner of
Washington Street and Columbia Road last Friday to commit murder at point-blank
range, one of a string of recent killings that have shocked the city.
People in government are fond of saying of crime, "We know what works." Clearly,
it isn't that simple, because what they are doing isn't working.
But there are some things government can do, and the governor can be a catalyst
for all of them. For one thing, the state needs to do more to protect witnesses.
The reasons that potential witnesses aren't eager to cooperate with law
enforcement are complicated, but one of the major factors is plain fear.
Last year, the Legislature, after protracted debate, passed a measure to help
give witnesses protection. It isn't perfect -- you don't get a new identity and
a one-way ticket out of sight -- but it has been useful. This program needs to
be fine-tuned and made permanent.
Special grand juries have turned out to be useful tools for making people tell
police and prosecutors what they know. They, too, are living on borrowed time;
funding runs out in October.
"It can't end in October," Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley told me
this week. He points to the quadruple homicide on Bourneside Street as a case
that might never have been broken without the program.
One problem Patrick is well aware of, according to one senior aide, is the flow
of guns into the state, often via the interstate from New York. As Menino has
long argued, stemming this traffic will require regional cooperation. Patrick
and his counterparts in New York and Connecticut need to find a room someplace
-- don't they all like the Berkshires? -- and figure out what they can do
cooperatively to combat gun trafficking.
Not least, Patrick needs to reassure his jittery constituents that the state is
a partner in this for the long haul and not by saying, "I'm looking under the
mattress for a few bucks, and I think I just might find them."
He needs to let Boston residents know that this is not just their problem and
that the state government will not rest until their fears are put to rest.
Mostly, he needs to mean it.
What made Patrick such an appealing candidate was the way he was able to meld
the personal and the political, the way he used his biography to illustrate who
he was politically. Crime, specifically, was one of the areas where those lines
converged.
This is the last issue on which he can remain nearly silent.
Adrian Walker is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at walker@globe.com.
Beginning next week, his column will appear on Tuesdays and Fridays.
Adrian Walker says, Cadillac Deval "used his biography to illustrate who
he was politically." Huh? (Adrian Walker, "A crime of omission," Boston Globe,
April 5, 2007) The Governor is a Harvard corporate lawyer masquerading as a
civil rights lawyer. If Walker is unaware of that he is unaware of the problem.
Fearing to testify is one thing, an emotional response. The rational reason
that most young people refuse to cooperate with police is two-fold. First they
cannot trust the police. 19 people were killed when they went to the FBI to
report James Bulger's crimes. When a crime victim goes to the police their first
reaction is to investigate the victim.
Moreover we see and hear the loud silence from the politicians about police
corruption. We see and hear how politicians remain unaccountable for their
criminal actions. So what are the role models showing young people? Hear no
evil, see no evil and speak no evil. Young people learn faster than older
people.
Until the politicians and the police recognize that they are the problem
this cycle of violence will continue to escalate and will never be solved.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
A crime of omission
By Adrian Walker,
Bostonh Globe Columnist
April 5, 2007
Some day soon, with the same sense of urgency that has characterized this
administration to date, Governor Deval Patrick plans to roll out a plan to
address violent crime in Massachusetts.
While neighborhoods in Boston are cowering in fear of violent criminals, Patrick
has had almost nothing to say about the situation. He did break his silence
Tuesday to say, after meeting Mayor Thomas M. Menino at City Hall, that he loves
the city, and the mayor for that matter, and is looking for the money to express
his affection.
Wonderful. I'm sure Menino loves him, too.
Patrick's reticence is surprising, to say the least. As we were told frequently
when he was a candidate, he grew up on the South Side of Chicago. He has
personally been a victim of gang violence. He said he was the only candidate who
had ever prosecuted anyone.
Now, just a few miles from the State House, even less than that from Patrick's
home in Milton, people in Dorchester are wondering whether someone with the
intention of settling a beef is going to board the bus or the MBTA train they
are riding. They wonder if that someone will have a loaded gun and whether they
will be sitting too close to the intended target. They wonder what anyone is
doing to protect them.
That might have sounded melodramatic a few months ago, even a few weeks ago. But
not now, not after someone climbed aboard a rush-hour bus at the corner of
Washington Street and Columbia Road last Friday to commit murder at point-blank
range, one of a string of recent killings that have shocked the city.
People in government are fond of saying of crime, "We know what works." Clearly,
it isn't that simple, because what they are doing isn't working.
But there are some things government can do, and the governor can be a catalyst
for all of them. For one thing, the state needs to do more to protect witnesses.
The reasons that potential witnesses aren't eager to cooperate with law
enforcement are complicated, but one of the major factors is plain fear.
Last year, the Legislature, after protracted debate, passed a measure to help
give witnesses protection. It isn't perfect -- you don't get a new identity and
a one-way ticket out of sight -- but it has been useful. This program needs to
be fine-tuned and made permanent.
Special grand juries have turned out to be useful tools for making people tell
police and prosecutors what they know. They, too, are living on borrowed time;
funding runs out in October.
"It can't end in October," Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley told me
this week. He points to the quadruple homicide on Bourneside Street as a case
that might never have been broken without the program.
One problem Patrick is well aware of, according to one senior aide, is the flow
of guns into the state, often via the interstate from New York. As Menino has
long argued, stemming this traffic will require regional cooperation. Patrick
and his counterparts in New York and Connecticut need to find a room someplace
-- don't they all like the Berkshires? -- and figure out what they can do
cooperatively to combat gun trafficking.
Not least, Patrick needs to reassure his jittery constituents that the state is
a partner in this for the long haul and not by saying, "I'm looking under the
mattress for a few bucks, and I think I just might find them."
He needs to let Boston residents know that this is not just their problem and
that the state government will not rest until their fears are put to rest.
Mostly, he needs to mean it.
What made Patrick such an appealing candidate was the way he was able to meld
the personal and the political, the way he used his biography to illustrate who
he was politically. Crime, specifically, was one of the areas where those lines
converged.
This is the last issue on which he can remain nearly silent.
Adrian Walker is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at walker@globe.com.
Beginning next week, his column will appear on Tuesdays and Fridays.
Money In Politics
Money In Politics
The argument that "money follows the the message of the candidate and his
or her prospects for winning" is flawed. (JOHN SAMPLES, "'08: BIG TICKET," New
York Post, April 9, 2007) Suggesting that "voters were better informed about
candidates in the most expensive races" is also specious.
How many candidates reveal how their campaigns work? Listen to the
silence about the public relations industry and its influence on journalism.
What politicians speak unscripted truth?
It is deceptive to say that "Americans are free to support the candidates
and ideas of their choice." Samples himself says "party activists" didn't like
the weak candidate's message. Why should party activists decide what messages
will be heard? If messages remain censored how can voters decide on all of the
potential candidates and their messages?
Samples argues for a return to back room "party activist" deals. Why waste
the money if candidates can appear before the "party activists" and they can
tell us for whom we can vote?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
'08: BIG TICKET
WHY A $1B PREZ RACE IS GOOD FOR DEMOCRACY
New York Post
By JOHN SAMPLES
April 9, 2007 -- PRESIDENTIAL hopefuls made headlines last week when Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama both announced they'd raised record sums. On the
Republican side, Mitt Romney also raised more than $20 million in the first
quarter of 2007.
Shortly after the numbers became public, predictable laments began. The
presidential candidates supposedly had been bought by the highest bidder - they
were, in the words of a Washington Post editorial, "beholden to well-connected
financiers." But the truth is exactly the opposite.
In fact, money follows the message of a candidate and his or her prospects for
winning the presidency. That is especially clear with Obama, who emerged from
nowhere to raise $25 million by offering hope and charisma to Democratic
activists starving for both.
Critics also complain that the public doesn't get a chance to hear the messages
of candidates who can't raise sufficient funds to make a race. But when Tom
Vilsack, the former Iowa governor, dropped out of the Democratic race for lack
of funding, party activists had heard Vilsack's pitch - and decided not to
support him. Either they didn't like his message or they thought he'd be a
weaker candidate than his competitors for the nomination.
People also worry that we are spending ever-larger sums on presidential
campaigns: Overall, the candidates and parties are expected to spend over $1
billion on the 2008 primaries and general election - a sum that, taken alone, is
unimaginable for most people.
But put that $1 billion in perspective: The next president will strongly
influence how the federal government raises some $12 trillion in taxes over the
next four years. And discretionary federal spending - that is, discounting
"automatic pilot" programs like Social security - during those years will total
about $3 trillion.
Spending $1 billion to keep voters informed about candidates who'll help manage
trillions seems like a pittance - without even considering the fact that he or
she will also make countless life-or-death decisions, not least by becoming
commander-in-chief when the nation is at war.
Aren't the candidates setting fund-raising rec- ords? Yes, but that's not
surprising.
Generally speaking, Americans spend about the same proportion of national wealth
on each presidential election. Since the economy grows continually, each
presidential election tends to set a record for campaign spending.
Spending for the 2008 race may grow even faster since both parties have
wide-open races. Open contests usually attract more candidates, who raise more
money. Record spending thus corresponds to record competition for the
nominations of the two parties. This strong competition is a reason to
celebrate, not to lament, the state of American democracy.
Indeed, studies have shown that more spending on elections means better-informed
voters. John Coleman of the University of Wisconsin compared contests for
congressional seats - and found that voters were better informed about the
candidates in the most expensive races. He also discovered that spending helped
the "information poor" voters more than it did the "information rich." That is,
those who knew less about the candidates and the issues gained more information
from high spending than did voters who were already well informed.
Consider, too, that this year's record fund-raising reflects the free choices of
many individuals. It is a serious choice demanding a real sacrifice in money in
support of their hopes for the nation. Americans have a right to give to the
candidate or party of their choice or not to give at all.
Those who complain about record fund-raising often recommend government
financing of campaigns - as in the partial public funding for U.S. presidential
elections. In such systems, the government taxes citizens to provide funding for
candidates and political parties.
This offends liberty twice: Taxes are not voluntary, and everyone is forced to
fund candidates and causes they deplore. Those who prefer not to give at all are
forced to do so. Not surprising, only 7 percent of Americans support the U.S.
system of taxpayer financing of presidential campaigns.
In short, record fund-raising is cause for celebration, not concern. It informs
voters, fosters competition and indicates support for candidates.
Most of all, it shows that Americans are free to support the candidates and
ideas of their choice. That's a freedom well worth preserving.
John Samples is director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato
Institute.
The argument that "money follows the the message of the candidate and his
or her prospects for winning" is flawed. (JOHN SAMPLES, "'08: BIG TICKET," New
York Post, April 9, 2007) Suggesting that "voters were better informed about
candidates in the most expensive races" is also specious.
How many candidates reveal how their campaigns work? Listen to the
silence about the public relations industry and its influence on journalism.
What politicians speak unscripted truth?
It is deceptive to say that "Americans are free to support the candidates
and ideas of their choice." Samples himself says "party activists" didn't like
the weak candidate's message. Why should party activists decide what messages
will be heard? If messages remain censored how can voters decide on all of the
potential candidates and their messages?
Samples argues for a return to back room "party activist" deals. Why waste
the money if candidates can appear before the "party activists" and they can
tell us for whom we can vote?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
'08: BIG TICKET
WHY A $1B PREZ RACE IS GOOD FOR DEMOCRACY
New York Post
By JOHN SAMPLES
April 9, 2007 -- PRESIDENTIAL hopefuls made headlines last week when Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama both announced they'd raised record sums. On the
Republican side, Mitt Romney also raised more than $20 million in the first
quarter of 2007.
Shortly after the numbers became public, predictable laments began. The
presidential candidates supposedly had been bought by the highest bidder - they
were, in the words of a Washington Post editorial, "beholden to well-connected
financiers." But the truth is exactly the opposite.
In fact, money follows the message of a candidate and his or her prospects for
winning the presidency. That is especially clear with Obama, who emerged from
nowhere to raise $25 million by offering hope and charisma to Democratic
activists starving for both.
Critics also complain that the public doesn't get a chance to hear the messages
of candidates who can't raise sufficient funds to make a race. But when Tom
Vilsack, the former Iowa governor, dropped out of the Democratic race for lack
of funding, party activists had heard Vilsack's pitch - and decided not to
support him. Either they didn't like his message or they thought he'd be a
weaker candidate than his competitors for the nomination.
People also worry that we are spending ever-larger sums on presidential
campaigns: Overall, the candidates and parties are expected to spend over $1
billion on the 2008 primaries and general election - a sum that, taken alone, is
unimaginable for most people.
But put that $1 billion in perspective: The next president will strongly
influence how the federal government raises some $12 trillion in taxes over the
next four years. And discretionary federal spending - that is, discounting
"automatic pilot" programs like Social security - during those years will total
about $3 trillion.
Spending $1 billion to keep voters informed about candidates who'll help manage
trillions seems like a pittance - without even considering the fact that he or
she will also make countless life-or-death decisions, not least by becoming
commander-in-chief when the nation is at war.
Aren't the candidates setting fund-raising rec- ords? Yes, but that's not
surprising.
Generally speaking, Americans spend about the same proportion of national wealth
on each presidential election. Since the economy grows continually, each
presidential election tends to set a record for campaign spending.
Spending for the 2008 race may grow even faster since both parties have
wide-open races. Open contests usually attract more candidates, who raise more
money. Record spending thus corresponds to record competition for the
nominations of the two parties. This strong competition is a reason to
celebrate, not to lament, the state of American democracy.
Indeed, studies have shown that more spending on elections means better-informed
voters. John Coleman of the University of Wisconsin compared contests for
congressional seats - and found that voters were better informed about the
candidates in the most expensive races. He also discovered that spending helped
the "information poor" voters more than it did the "information rich." That is,
those who knew less about the candidates and the issues gained more information
from high spending than did voters who were already well informed.
Consider, too, that this year's record fund-raising reflects the free choices of
many individuals. It is a serious choice demanding a real sacrifice in money in
support of their hopes for the nation. Americans have a right to give to the
candidate or party of their choice or not to give at all.
Those who complain about record fund-raising often recommend government
financing of campaigns - as in the partial public funding for U.S. presidential
elections. In such systems, the government taxes citizens to provide funding for
candidates and political parties.
This offends liberty twice: Taxes are not voluntary, and everyone is forced to
fund candidates and causes they deplore. Those who prefer not to give at all are
forced to do so. Not surprising, only 7 percent of Americans support the U.S.
system of taxpayer financing of presidential campaigns.
In short, record fund-raising is cause for celebration, not concern. It informs
voters, fosters competition and indicates support for candidates.
Most of all, it shows that Americans are free to support the candidates and
ideas of their choice. That's a freedom well worth preserving.
John Samples is director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato
Institute.
Obama and Imus
Obama and Imus
Perhaps the reason that Barack "Obama did not address whether he thought
Imus should be taken off the air." is that he thinks more in terms of law than
Al Sharpton or corporate executives. (Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, "Obama's
silence on Imus alarms some blacks," Boston Globe, April 11, 2007) Sharpton sees
through the prism of race. Corporate executives see the world through the botton
line.
The reaction to Imus indicates how fragile the state of free speech is in
the US. Imus' comments are protected under the US Constitution. That should be
the only issue. Corporate executives don't focus on freedoms. Obama's silence on
protecting protected speech is a more important concern due to his prominent
history at Harvard Law School as President of the Law Review. If he does not
support free speech who does?
Saying his comments are racist is inaccurate. But even if they were racism
is a personal or political opinion. Intolerant censors promote the idea that a
person cannot have personal or political thoughts that they do not like. Again
the idea of racism is a constitutionally protected idea and opinion.
More importantly what is the offense to Al Sharpton? If he has any
connection with any law enforcement agency as he had historically he is
violating the First Amendment constitutional rights of Imus.
When police, prosecutors and journalists insult people with disabilities
every day there is loud silence from journalists, politicians and all of these
alleged compassionate liberal hypocrite censors. Speech critical of wealthy,
powerful and politically connected groups is not tolerated. The notion that
African Americans are weak in this country is nonsense. When a white
heterosexual male is brutalized there is no national spokesman who denounces the
abuse.
Collectivism has destroyed the freedoms formerly enjoyed by all citizens of this
nation. Now it is only members of the above groups who enjoy those rights.
The notion of free speech is for speech you hate. Everyone supports speech
that they like. The decreasing level of tolerance for unpopular speech is
dangerous.
In Cambridge, MA where Harvard and MIT reside there is almost total
opposition to critical speech. Criticizing politicians, the universities and
most of the sacred liberal cows is shunned. Only hated Republicans and mental
patients in the one-party state are acceptable targets for criticism.
Critics of global warming are threatened with job loss just as Imus is
threatened. A recent President of Harvard was forced to resign by the power of
women that he criticized. At Columbia a free speech expert, Lee Bollinger feared
punishing a group of thugs who disrupted a lecture. Presidents of NYU, Cornell,
Tufts, Pace and many other colleges in recent years showed they lack spines to
support free speech.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks
Candidate faces first test on handling issues of race
By Rick Klein and Joseph Williams,
Boston Globe Staff
April 11, 2007
WASHINGTON -- With the Rev. Al Sharpton leading calls Monday for radio host Don
Imus to be fired over racially insensitive remarks, Senator Barack Obama's
presidential campaign avoided the controversy throughout the day.
Not until Monday evening, five days after Imus's comments were uttered and hours
after CBS Radio and MSNBC announced a two-week suspension for the radio host,
did Obama weigh in, saying in a statement: "The comments of Don Imus were
divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." Obama did not
address whether he thought Imus should be taken off the air.
The episode is the first test of how Obama -- who is of mixed-race background --
is handling the contentious issue of race in his presidential campaign. Even as
polls have shown other Democrats attracting a large share of the black vote,
Obama has steered clear of the kind of activism symbolized by Sharpton and the
Rev. Jesse Jackson, who were both highly visible in the Imus episode but whose
aggressiveness on race issues has alienated some white voters in the past.
But with Obama battling other Democrats -- most notably Senator Hillary Rodham
Clinton of New York -- for the support of black voters, the candidate's
reticence on the Imus issue set off alarms yesterday among some black activists
who are anxious to see him more forcefully push for racial justice.
Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at
Princeton University, said Obama missed an opportunity to prove himself to
blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in
denouncing Imus.
"This was so easy, and his unwillingness to touch it tells me this is going to
be his third rail, and race never goes away in politics," Harris Lacewell said.
"Black people want to love Barack. They're doing everything they can to love
Barack. We want to believe that Barack is better than this. But they will turn
on him."
The Obama campaign declined to comment yesterday on its handling of the issue.
One adviser pointed out, however, that Obama issued a public comment before the
other major Democratic candidates -- including Clinton and former senator John
Edwards of North Carolina.
Obama represents a break with the presidential candidacies of forebears such as
Sharpton, a Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, and Jackson, who ran in
1984 and 1988.
Obama is the son of a white mother and a black father from Kenya, and grew up in
Hawaii and Indonesia. He is part of a generation too young to be shaped directly
by the civil rights movement; he was 6 years old when Martin Luther King Jr. was
slain in 1968.
Obama told CBS's "60 Minutes" earlier this year that he is rooted in the
African-American community, but not defined by it.
In a closely watched speech last month in Selma, Ala., Obama declared that he
was part of the "Joshua generation" -- likening himself to the Biblical
successor to Moses who led the Jewish people into the promised land -- and thus
located himself in the post-liberation generation.
While acknowledging debts to civil rights pioneers, Obama has made clear that he
represents a different kind of politics, rooted deeply in coalition-building,
not anger and outrage.
"He's cut from a different cloth, and that doesn't make him less black," said
Joyce Ferriabough, a Boston-based Democratic consultant who is African-American.
"His way of doing things is a lot more measured, less fiery, but that doesn't
make him less effective. He needs to be the candidate of the people, and the
people aren't just black."
Ron Walters, a former top campaign aide to Jackson and now a politics professor
at the University of Maryland, said that if Obama took on a issue like Imus's
comments, he could undercut his appeal to the broad electorate.
"There are people that are just waiting for him to jump out there in the
crosshairs and be a race leader," Walters said. If Obama spoke out, "that would
put him in a different role: a race leader. And that would pull back the covers
for those who don't see race when they look at Barack Obama."
Yet Obama's promise to take up the mantle of past civil rights activists and his
showing in the polls have not assuaged the concerns of some black leaders,
including Sharpton, that Obama isn't sufficiently committed to the causes they
hold dear. With Clinton also earning significant black support and her husband,
the former president, still widely popular among black voters, those qualms
among prominent blacks could have electoral consequences for Obama.
Sharpton has repeatedly said that Obama did not learn the lessons of the civil
rights movement, including the value of bold stands and dramatic action.
"I agree with him that we are part of the Joshua generation, but Joshua came
from the ranks of Moses to continue the struggle and not to abandon the
struggle," Sharpton told the Washington Times last month. "Being a part of the
Joshua generation is based on your work and not your age."
Though Jackson lined up behind Obama two weeks ago, Sharpton has pointedly
refused to endorse Obama, sparking speculation that he will support Clinton --
his home-state senator -- instead. Sharpton has said he will not endorse any
candidate until hearing more about their views on civil rights and other issues
at his National Action Network convention next week in New York City.
Michael Eric Dyson, a University of Pennsylvania professor and author, said he
supports Obama's campaign but questions why he did not speak up more forcefully
about Imus. He added that the other presidential candidates had the same
responsibility.
"Here's the point: Paying attention to the issues of race is an American
concern," he said. "It looks as if he's being so careful and cautious not to
ruffle the feathers of the mainstream that he may inadvertently raise the
hackles of the black majority."
Harris Lacewell, the Princeton professor, said Obama's willingness to cede the
spotlight to Sharpton on the Imus issue could leave such veteran activists more
powerful in the black community -- and therefore tougher to win over.
Ferriabough, the Democratic consultant, said Obama's campaign is tied to the
candidate's personal energy and charisma, rather than those who are declaring
their support for him.
"Endorsements won't make or break this candidate," said Ferriabough, who said
she has not committed to supporting any candidate but is leaning toward Obama.
"Obama doesn't need to go on the soapbox," Ferriabough said. "Others are doing
it, led by Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. He's nipping at Hillary, so he's playing
for real."
Perhaps the reason that Barack "Obama did not address whether he thought
Imus should be taken off the air." is that he thinks more in terms of law than
Al Sharpton or corporate executives. (Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, "Obama's
silence on Imus alarms some blacks," Boston Globe, April 11, 2007) Sharpton sees
through the prism of race. Corporate executives see the world through the botton
line.
The reaction to Imus indicates how fragile the state of free speech is in
the US. Imus' comments are protected under the US Constitution. That should be
the only issue. Corporate executives don't focus on freedoms. Obama's silence on
protecting protected speech is a more important concern due to his prominent
history at Harvard Law School as President of the Law Review. If he does not
support free speech who does?
Saying his comments are racist is inaccurate. But even if they were racism
is a personal or political opinion. Intolerant censors promote the idea that a
person cannot have personal or political thoughts that they do not like. Again
the idea of racism is a constitutionally protected idea and opinion.
More importantly what is the offense to Al Sharpton? If he has any
connection with any law enforcement agency as he had historically he is
violating the First Amendment constitutional rights of Imus.
When police, prosecutors and journalists insult people with disabilities
every day there is loud silence from journalists, politicians and all of these
alleged compassionate liberal hypocrite censors. Speech critical of wealthy,
powerful and politically connected groups is not tolerated. The notion that
African Americans are weak in this country is nonsense. When a white
heterosexual male is brutalized there is no national spokesman who denounces the
abuse.
Collectivism has destroyed the freedoms formerly enjoyed by all citizens of this
nation. Now it is only members of the above groups who enjoy those rights.
The notion of free speech is for speech you hate. Everyone supports speech
that they like. The decreasing level of tolerance for unpopular speech is
dangerous.
In Cambridge, MA where Harvard and MIT reside there is almost total
opposition to critical speech. Criticizing politicians, the universities and
most of the sacred liberal cows is shunned. Only hated Republicans and mental
patients in the one-party state are acceptable targets for criticism.
Critics of global warming are threatened with job loss just as Imus is
threatened. A recent President of Harvard was forced to resign by the power of
women that he criticized. At Columbia a free speech expert, Lee Bollinger feared
punishing a group of thugs who disrupted a lecture. Presidents of NYU, Cornell,
Tufts, Pace and many other colleges in recent years showed they lack spines to
support free speech.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks
Candidate faces first test on handling issues of race
By Rick Klein and Joseph Williams,
Boston Globe Staff
April 11, 2007
WASHINGTON -- With the Rev. Al Sharpton leading calls Monday for radio host Don
Imus to be fired over racially insensitive remarks, Senator Barack Obama's
presidential campaign avoided the controversy throughout the day.
Not until Monday evening, five days after Imus's comments were uttered and hours
after CBS Radio and MSNBC announced a two-week suspension for the radio host,
did Obama weigh in, saying in a statement: "The comments of Don Imus were
divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." Obama did not
address whether he thought Imus should be taken off the air.
The episode is the first test of how Obama -- who is of mixed-race background --
is handling the contentious issue of race in his presidential campaign. Even as
polls have shown other Democrats attracting a large share of the black vote,
Obama has steered clear of the kind of activism symbolized by Sharpton and the
Rev. Jesse Jackson, who were both highly visible in the Imus episode but whose
aggressiveness on race issues has alienated some white voters in the past.
But with Obama battling other Democrats -- most notably Senator Hillary Rodham
Clinton of New York -- for the support of black voters, the candidate's
reticence on the Imus issue set off alarms yesterday among some black activists
who are anxious to see him more forcefully push for racial justice.
Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at
Princeton University, said Obama missed an opportunity to prove himself to
blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in
denouncing Imus.
"This was so easy, and his unwillingness to touch it tells me this is going to
be his third rail, and race never goes away in politics," Harris Lacewell said.
"Black people want to love Barack. They're doing everything they can to love
Barack. We want to believe that Barack is better than this. But they will turn
on him."
The Obama campaign declined to comment yesterday on its handling of the issue.
One adviser pointed out, however, that Obama issued a public comment before the
other major Democratic candidates -- including Clinton and former senator John
Edwards of North Carolina.
Obama represents a break with the presidential candidacies of forebears such as
Sharpton, a Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, and Jackson, who ran in
1984 and 1988.
Obama is the son of a white mother and a black father from Kenya, and grew up in
Hawaii and Indonesia. He is part of a generation too young to be shaped directly
by the civil rights movement; he was 6 years old when Martin Luther King Jr. was
slain in 1968.
Obama told CBS's "60 Minutes" earlier this year that he is rooted in the
African-American community, but not defined by it.
In a closely watched speech last month in Selma, Ala., Obama declared that he
was part of the "Joshua generation" -- likening himself to the Biblical
successor to Moses who led the Jewish people into the promised land -- and thus
located himself in the post-liberation generation.
While acknowledging debts to civil rights pioneers, Obama has made clear that he
represents a different kind of politics, rooted deeply in coalition-building,
not anger and outrage.
"He's cut from a different cloth, and that doesn't make him less black," said
Joyce Ferriabough, a Boston-based Democratic consultant who is African-American.
"His way of doing things is a lot more measured, less fiery, but that doesn't
make him less effective. He needs to be the candidate of the people, and the
people aren't just black."
Ron Walters, a former top campaign aide to Jackson and now a politics professor
at the University of Maryland, said that if Obama took on a issue like Imus's
comments, he could undercut his appeal to the broad electorate.
"There are people that are just waiting for him to jump out there in the
crosshairs and be a race leader," Walters said. If Obama spoke out, "that would
put him in a different role: a race leader. And that would pull back the covers
for those who don't see race when they look at Barack Obama."
Yet Obama's promise to take up the mantle of past civil rights activists and his
showing in the polls have not assuaged the concerns of some black leaders,
including Sharpton, that Obama isn't sufficiently committed to the causes they
hold dear. With Clinton also earning significant black support and her husband,
the former president, still widely popular among black voters, those qualms
among prominent blacks could have electoral consequences for Obama.
Sharpton has repeatedly said that Obama did not learn the lessons of the civil
rights movement, including the value of bold stands and dramatic action.
"I agree with him that we are part of the Joshua generation, but Joshua came
from the ranks of Moses to continue the struggle and not to abandon the
struggle," Sharpton told the Washington Times last month. "Being a part of the
Joshua generation is based on your work and not your age."
Though Jackson lined up behind Obama two weeks ago, Sharpton has pointedly
refused to endorse Obama, sparking speculation that he will support Clinton --
his home-state senator -- instead. Sharpton has said he will not endorse any
candidate until hearing more about their views on civil rights and other issues
at his National Action Network convention next week in New York City.
Michael Eric Dyson, a University of Pennsylvania professor and author, said he
supports Obama's campaign but questions why he did not speak up more forcefully
about Imus. He added that the other presidential candidates had the same
responsibility.
"Here's the point: Paying attention to the issues of race is an American
concern," he said. "It looks as if he's being so careful and cautious not to
ruffle the feathers of the mainstream that he may inadvertently raise the
hackles of the black majority."
Harris Lacewell, the Princeton professor, said Obama's willingness to cede the
spotlight to Sharpton on the Imus issue could leave such veteran activists more
powerful in the black community -- and therefore tougher to win over.
Ferriabough, the Democratic consultant, said Obama's campaign is tied to the
candidate's personal energy and charisma, rather than those who are declaring
their support for him.
"Endorsements won't make or break this candidate," said Ferriabough, who said
she has not committed to supporting any candidate but is leaning toward Obama.
"Obama doesn't need to go on the soapbox," Ferriabough said. "Others are doing
it, led by Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. He's nipping at Hillary, so he's playing
for real."
Put Focus on People Not Politicians' Experiments
Put Focus on People Not Politicians' Experiments
Put focus on people
instead of politicians' experiments
Boston Sunday Globe
April 16, 2006
Why do journalists ignore ordinary citizens and fawn over public officials?
(News in Brief: ''Roll a mile in my chair," April 9, City Weekly).
For about 100 years, persons with disabilities (Some people have nonphysical
disabilities. Hello?) have been denied the right to travel on city streets, a
basic constitutional right. Other rights are still denied to persons with
disabilities. (Hello? Anybody home?)
But when an elected official conducts an experiment to see what it is like
having a disability, The Boston Globe writes about that. Is it any wonder why so
many people have such low opinions of journalists and politicians?
Roy Bercaw Editor, Enough Room Cambridge
Put focus on people
instead of politicians' experiments
Boston Sunday Globe
April 16, 2006
Why do journalists ignore ordinary citizens and fawn over public officials?
(News in Brief: ''Roll a mile in my chair," April 9, City Weekly).
For about 100 years, persons with disabilities (Some people have nonphysical
disabilities. Hello?) have been denied the right to travel on city streets, a
basic constitutional right. Other rights are still denied to persons with
disabilities. (Hello? Anybody home?)
But when an elected official conducts an experiment to see what it is like
having a disability, The Boston Globe writes about that. Is it any wonder why so
many people have such low opinions of journalists and politicians?
Roy Bercaw Editor, Enough Room Cambridge
Bigotry on Parade
Bigotry on Parade
Byron Diggs' denial is not unique among medical professionals who seldom
admit their negative bias toward persons with disabilities. Who would believe
that doctors are prejudiced? Ahem! (Byron R. Diggs, "Psychiatric Care Needs
Medical Care," Letter, Cambridge Chronicle, May 31, 2007) This doctor celebrates
and boasts of his bias.
Diggs declares that statements with which he disagrees are inaccurate and
distorted showing his intolerance. Diggs denies that he suggested that all
persons with disabilities are violent by citing two extreme cases of criminal
acts. But that is what journalists, police and prosecutors do all of the time.
Diggs is part of the clueless majority hateful population who fear and demonize
persons with disabilities.
Medical professionals are a major barrier to persons with disabilities
being treated the same as ordinary persons. Diggs is unaware that saying his
"answer contended that such patients are potentially dangerous," shows his
prejudice. How are persons with disabilities more potentially dangerous than the
rest of the population? They are only so in Diggs' biased mind.
Diggs shows intolerance by stereotyping all persons who arrive at the ER
in an unconventional manner. If a person with Muscular Distrophy who uses a
wheelchair arrived at the ER, would Diggs forceably drug him because he was
unable to walk and acted funny? Diggs is unable to perceive that being upset may
be a person's disability. He equates being upset to violence and crime. He
recognizes that there may be other reasons than psychiatric causes. But he
asserts that "such patients are suffering greatly and out of control." Oh?
Diggs would never generalize about women, homosexuals or blacks as he does
about persons with disabilities. That is evidence of his prejudice. He needs
some sensitivity training. Shame on this clueless prejudiced doctor.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
PO Box 400297
Cambridge MA 02140 USA
http://www.enoughroom.blogspot.com
http://www.enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com
Cambridge Chronicle
Letter
May 31, 2007
-
Psychiatric Care Needs Medical Care
I read, with a growing sense of deja vu, Cathy A. Levin�s letter in today�s
Chronicle.
On April 27, Ms. Levin and colleagues wrote an oped piece in the Chronicle
criticizing psychiatric care in the emergency room. It was replete with
inaccurate and distorting statements. On May 10, my countering letter was
printed in the Chronicle. Ms. Levin�s response, �Surprised by letter,� is the
source of deja vu: more inaccuracies and distortions.
She writes, �We had written that � (ER psych patients) are usually not
dangerous. Diggs� astounding answer was to reference two sensationalistic news
stories: Andrea Yeager and �Seung-Hui Cho, the murder of 32 at Virginia Tech.�
That was not my answer to the above comment. Yeager and Cho were mentioned to
point out the fact that if they had been seen in the ER, the subsequent tragedy
might have been avoided.
My answer contended that such patients are potentially dangerous; the reasons
for their ER visit often involve escalating behavior that is fraught with danger
to themselves and/or to others.
Ms. Levin writes, �It is alarming to us that a medical professional like Dr.
Diggs says that it is impossible to even diagnose an emotionally out-of-control
person.� Their surprise is incredibly naive.
Whether referred by their clinicians, brought in by the police or family
members, such patients are suffering greatly and out of control; physically
active or passive, they cannot communicate or cooperate with health-care staff.
This is not blame, but reality. These patients need prompt medical evaluation to
rule out/rule in nonpsychiatric causes: low or high blood sugar, low or high
thyroid hormone, metabolic syndromes, brain hemorrhage � the list is very long,
possible causes not uncommon. Prompt psychiatric evaluation normally follows
this �medical clearance.� None of this can be effectively performed if the
patient is punching and combative, or inert and unable to cooperate. To
experienced healthcare providers, the necessity for temporary chemical or
physical restraint is axiomatic; I am at a loss to explain Ms. Levin�s lack of
understanding of these basic necessities, nor the need to distort my meaning.
BYRON R. DIGGS, MD
Arlington
Byron Diggs' denial is not unique among medical professionals who seldom
admit their negative bias toward persons with disabilities. Who would believe
that doctors are prejudiced? Ahem! (Byron R. Diggs, "Psychiatric Care Needs
Medical Care," Letter, Cambridge Chronicle, May 31, 2007) This doctor celebrates
and boasts of his bias.
Diggs declares that statements with which he disagrees are inaccurate and
distorted showing his intolerance. Diggs denies that he suggested that all
persons with disabilities are violent by citing two extreme cases of criminal
acts. But that is what journalists, police and prosecutors do all of the time.
Diggs is part of the clueless majority hateful population who fear and demonize
persons with disabilities.
Medical professionals are a major barrier to persons with disabilities
being treated the same as ordinary persons. Diggs is unaware that saying his
"answer contended that such patients are potentially dangerous," shows his
prejudice. How are persons with disabilities more potentially dangerous than the
rest of the population? They are only so in Diggs' biased mind.
Diggs shows intolerance by stereotyping all persons who arrive at the ER
in an unconventional manner. If a person with Muscular Distrophy who uses a
wheelchair arrived at the ER, would Diggs forceably drug him because he was
unable to walk and acted funny? Diggs is unable to perceive that being upset may
be a person's disability. He equates being upset to violence and crime. He
recognizes that there may be other reasons than psychiatric causes. But he
asserts that "such patients are suffering greatly and out of control." Oh?
Diggs would never generalize about women, homosexuals or blacks as he does
about persons with disabilities. That is evidence of his prejudice. He needs
some sensitivity training. Shame on this clueless prejudiced doctor.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
PO Box 400297
Cambridge MA 02140 USA
http://www.enoughroom.blogspot.com
http://www.enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com
Cambridge Chronicle
Letter
May 31, 2007
-
Psychiatric Care Needs Medical Care
I read, with a growing sense of deja vu, Cathy A. Levin�s letter in today�s
Chronicle.
On April 27, Ms. Levin and colleagues wrote an oped piece in the Chronicle
criticizing psychiatric care in the emergency room. It was replete with
inaccurate and distorting statements. On May 10, my countering letter was
printed in the Chronicle. Ms. Levin�s response, �Surprised by letter,� is the
source of deja vu: more inaccuracies and distortions.
She writes, �We had written that � (ER psych patients) are usually not
dangerous. Diggs� astounding answer was to reference two sensationalistic news
stories: Andrea Yeager and �Seung-Hui Cho, the murder of 32 at Virginia Tech.�
That was not my answer to the above comment. Yeager and Cho were mentioned to
point out the fact that if they had been seen in the ER, the subsequent tragedy
might have been avoided.
My answer contended that such patients are potentially dangerous; the reasons
for their ER visit often involve escalating behavior that is fraught with danger
to themselves and/or to others.
Ms. Levin writes, �It is alarming to us that a medical professional like Dr.
Diggs says that it is impossible to even diagnose an emotionally out-of-control
person.� Their surprise is incredibly naive.
Whether referred by their clinicians, brought in by the police or family
members, such patients are suffering greatly and out of control; physically
active or passive, they cannot communicate or cooperate with health-care staff.
This is not blame, but reality. These patients need prompt medical evaluation to
rule out/rule in nonpsychiatric causes: low or high blood sugar, low or high
thyroid hormone, metabolic syndromes, brain hemorrhage � the list is very long,
possible causes not uncommon. Prompt psychiatric evaluation normally follows
this �medical clearance.� None of this can be effectively performed if the
patient is punching and combative, or inert and unable to cooperate. To
experienced healthcare providers, the necessity for temporary chemical or
physical restraint is axiomatic; I am at a loss to explain Ms. Levin�s lack of
understanding of these basic necessities, nor the need to distort my meaning.
BYRON R. DIGGS, MD
Arlington
Right To Privacy
Right To Privacy
As background on Helder Peixoto Erin Smith reports "Daniel Furtado, a
mentally ill East Cambridge man [...] was shot by police [...] after he
allegedly attacked officers with a hatchet." (Erin Smith, "From wannabe pol to
playboy, Peixoto lived double life," Cambridge Chronicle, June 07, 2007)
What is the relevance of describing Furtado as "a mentally ill" man? Does
that irrational premise suggest that mental illness causes violence? How was his
medical history obtained by Ms. Smith? It is a violation of state and US privacy
laws to reveal without consent a person's medical records. If the "history" was
obtained from a police officer, a friend or relative, are these diagnoses
reliable?
Mr. Furtado was accused not charged with a misdemeanor offense. The
officers did not see the alleged offense. The mother of a Cambridge police
officer called in the complaint. With no warrant and no court order police broke
into his home in violation of state and US laws and The Fourth Amendment to the
Constitution.
Intense unlawful animus toward persons with disabilities, pervasive among
police, caused the officers to violate all of the above laws. Police reports
omit that part of the incident. But they always include accusations of mental
illness, no matter how unreliable they are.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
From wannabe pol to playboy, Peixoto lived double life
By Erin Smith/Chronicle Staff
Cambridge Chronicle
Thu Jun 07, 2007, 07:00 AM EDT
Cambridge -
When Helder �Sonny� Peixoto first ran for City Council in 1999, Cambridge
residents watched as almost 1,000 of his campaign signs sprung in store windows
and front lawns overnight.
�It was a matter of great interest of how someone that nobody ever heard of
could get so much exposure so fast,� said Glenn Koocher, a former School
Committee member who ran a political commentary show on the local access channel
at the time.
There was no question that the East Cambridge native was ambitious, exploding
onto the city�s political scene with an energetic streak at the young age of 27.
He proudly told the Chronicle that he had ordered even more campaign signs in
the months before the election.
But then the whispered accusations among the Cambridge business community grew
louder � stories of Peixoto using strong-arm tactics and bullying shop owners
into displaying his signs and even flashing his MBTA police badge to help with
the convincing. Those who had political dealings with him described him as a
bully and a loose cannon who went after his political foes with a vengeance.
Peixoto made Vice Mayor Tim Toomey his unwilling political opponent in the
election, accusing Toomey of pressuring business owners to take down his
campaign signs, a charge Toomey denied.
Peixoto seemed to create buzz whenever he went.
Following his conviction for motor vehicle homicide, Peixoto moved to Florida
four years ago and tried to reinvent himself as a wealthy businessman, according
to the Palm Beach Post.
He moved to the El Cid historic district of West Palm Beach, Fla. � an area that
was developed as an upper-class neighborhood in the 1920s � and hobnobbed with
governors, mayors and crashed the parties of rich socialites, according to the
Post.
No one exactly knew Peixoto�s backstory, but some players in West Palm Beach�s
glamorous scene began to question his con story and fear his unpredictable
outbursts, according to the Post.
Peixoto even maintained his air of mystery on his Myspace page, giving few vague
details about who he was and dubbing himself �Sir Sonny.�
He described himself as �Tall tan unpredictable� and was fond of the television
show �24,� Euro house music and traveling. But there are no photos of him or any
friends or messages listed on the page. He last logged into the networking site
about two weeks before he committed suicide. Police suspect he bludgeoned his
former girlfriend, Amity Kozak, to death before hurling himself from an
11th-floor condo balcony.
Even on the brink of suicide, Peixoto kept up appearances of his fake playboy
lifestyle. A real estate agent was giving him a tour of an empty condo at The
Slade, a resort�style waterfront luxury complex, when he wandered onto the
balcony and hurled himself to his death on the sidewalk below.
But Peixoto grew up in the working-class neighborhood of East Cambridge, far
from the glitz of the socialite scene of West Palm Beach Palm, and graduated
from the criminal justice police-training program at the University of
Massachusetts-Lowell. When he first ran for City Council in 1999, he lived in
his mother�s house on Webster Avenue.
Peixoto ran on a platform to increase public safety, limit councilors� terms,
expand funding for the arts, including a scheme to build a �hatch shell� at
Magazine Beach along the Charles. But the political celebrity, which he so
desperately wanted, eluded him, and he only managed to garner 315 votes at the
polls.
But even after his losses at the polls, his commitment to the Portuguese
community in East Cambridge never yielded. Peixoto jumped in the mix to defend
the Portuguese community in 2002, after Daniel Furtado, a mentally ill East
Cambridge man who was born in Portugal, was shot by police three times after he
allegedly attacked officers with a hatchet following a four-hour stand off.
Peixoto, who was no longer living in Cambridge by then, accused Cambridge police
of racism in the case.
The following year, Peixoto found himself facing charges of vehicular homicide
in the death of a World War II veteran. By that time, Peixoto had moved out of
Cambridge and was living in Malden. Although Peixoto � who was in uniform when
his car plowed into Todd�s car � maintained his innocence, he resigned from the
force several months later.
After his eventual conviction, Peixoto moved to Florida and onto what he thought
would his new life.
As background on Helder Peixoto Erin Smith reports "Daniel Furtado, a
mentally ill East Cambridge man [...] was shot by police [...] after he
allegedly attacked officers with a hatchet." (Erin Smith, "From wannabe pol to
playboy, Peixoto lived double life," Cambridge Chronicle, June 07, 2007)
What is the relevance of describing Furtado as "a mentally ill" man? Does
that irrational premise suggest that mental illness causes violence? How was his
medical history obtained by Ms. Smith? It is a violation of state and US privacy
laws to reveal without consent a person's medical records. If the "history" was
obtained from a police officer, a friend or relative, are these diagnoses
reliable?
Mr. Furtado was accused not charged with a misdemeanor offense. The
officers did not see the alleged offense. The mother of a Cambridge police
officer called in the complaint. With no warrant and no court order police broke
into his home in violation of state and US laws and The Fourth Amendment to the
Constitution.
Intense unlawful animus toward persons with disabilities, pervasive among
police, caused the officers to violate all of the above laws. Police reports
omit that part of the incident. But they always include accusations of mental
illness, no matter how unreliable they are.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
From wannabe pol to playboy, Peixoto lived double life
By Erin Smith/Chronicle Staff
Cambridge Chronicle
Thu Jun 07, 2007, 07:00 AM EDT
Cambridge -
When Helder �Sonny� Peixoto first ran for City Council in 1999, Cambridge
residents watched as almost 1,000 of his campaign signs sprung in store windows
and front lawns overnight.
�It was a matter of great interest of how someone that nobody ever heard of
could get so much exposure so fast,� said Glenn Koocher, a former School
Committee member who ran a political commentary show on the local access channel
at the time.
There was no question that the East Cambridge native was ambitious, exploding
onto the city�s political scene with an energetic streak at the young age of 27.
He proudly told the Chronicle that he had ordered even more campaign signs in
the months before the election.
But then the whispered accusations among the Cambridge business community grew
louder � stories of Peixoto using strong-arm tactics and bullying shop owners
into displaying his signs and even flashing his MBTA police badge to help with
the convincing. Those who had political dealings with him described him as a
bully and a loose cannon who went after his political foes with a vengeance.
Peixoto made Vice Mayor Tim Toomey his unwilling political opponent in the
election, accusing Toomey of pressuring business owners to take down his
campaign signs, a charge Toomey denied.
Peixoto seemed to create buzz whenever he went.
Following his conviction for motor vehicle homicide, Peixoto moved to Florida
four years ago and tried to reinvent himself as a wealthy businessman, according
to the Palm Beach Post.
He moved to the El Cid historic district of West Palm Beach, Fla. � an area that
was developed as an upper-class neighborhood in the 1920s � and hobnobbed with
governors, mayors and crashed the parties of rich socialites, according to the
Post.
No one exactly knew Peixoto�s backstory, but some players in West Palm Beach�s
glamorous scene began to question his con story and fear his unpredictable
outbursts, according to the Post.
Peixoto even maintained his air of mystery on his Myspace page, giving few vague
details about who he was and dubbing himself �Sir Sonny.�
He described himself as �Tall tan unpredictable� and was fond of the television
show �24,� Euro house music and traveling. But there are no photos of him or any
friends or messages listed on the page. He last logged into the networking site
about two weeks before he committed suicide. Police suspect he bludgeoned his
former girlfriend, Amity Kozak, to death before hurling himself from an
11th-floor condo balcony.
Even on the brink of suicide, Peixoto kept up appearances of his fake playboy
lifestyle. A real estate agent was giving him a tour of an empty condo at The
Slade, a resort�style waterfront luxury complex, when he wandered onto the
balcony and hurled himself to his death on the sidewalk below.
But Peixoto grew up in the working-class neighborhood of East Cambridge, far
from the glitz of the socialite scene of West Palm Beach Palm, and graduated
from the criminal justice police-training program at the University of
Massachusetts-Lowell. When he first ran for City Council in 1999, he lived in
his mother�s house on Webster Avenue.
Peixoto ran on a platform to increase public safety, limit councilors� terms,
expand funding for the arts, including a scheme to build a �hatch shell� at
Magazine Beach along the Charles. But the political celebrity, which he so
desperately wanted, eluded him, and he only managed to garner 315 votes at the
polls.
But even after his losses at the polls, his commitment to the Portuguese
community in East Cambridge never yielded. Peixoto jumped in the mix to defend
the Portuguese community in 2002, after Daniel Furtado, a mentally ill East
Cambridge man who was born in Portugal, was shot by police three times after he
allegedly attacked officers with a hatchet following a four-hour stand off.
Peixoto, who was no longer living in Cambridge by then, accused Cambridge police
of racism in the case.
The following year, Peixoto found himself facing charges of vehicular homicide
in the death of a World War II veteran. By that time, Peixoto had moved out of
Cambridge and was living in Malden. Although Peixoto � who was in uniform when
his car plowed into Todd�s car � maintained his innocence, he resigned from the
force several months later.
After his eventual conviction, Peixoto moved to Florida and onto what he thought
would his new life.
Bigotry Continues at NECN
Bigotry Continues at NECN
Angus McQuilken said on Tuesday April 17, 2007, on NECN's NewsNight with
Jim Braude that we need to "keep guns out of the hands of people with a history
of mental illness." Here is one more example of civil rights activists for
homosexuals who indicate their bigoted hateful feelings toward persons with
disabilities. Upon what rational basis does McQuilken deny persons with a
history of mental illness the right to carry a gun? It appears that he shares
the NECN host's negative opinion of persons with disabilities.
McQuilken also said that mental illness needs to be considered for a gun
license. Why not consider homosexuality for a gun license? Homosexuals are more
violent than mental patients. Homosexuals are more likely to kill others than
persons with a history of mental illness. Typically we scrutinize the peaceful
citizens and ignore the violent ones.
The Constitution does not deny rights to persons with a history of mental
illness. Having a disability does not carry with it a constitutional prohibition
on exercising rights. Unlike homosexuals persons with disabilities do not have
wealthy politically connected TV and political spokesmen defending their rights
and corrupting the law and the courts. Why do homosexual leaders deny equal
rights to persons with disabilities?
Mr. Braude and NECN management continue to ignore my emails about his
bigoted views on persons with disabilities. Jim's current love object, Cadillac
Deval said he was "sick of the careless insults." But neither Deval nor Braude
believe that persons with disabilities have the same feelings as black people,
homosexuals and women. Persons with disabilites are as hurt by Braude's and
McQuilkjen's hate speech as black people are hurt by Imus' speech. This is the
dictionary definition of bigotry. When will it end?
McQuilken is a limousine liberal failed candidate for state office. He
reflects the unlawful liberal position on persons with disabilities, i.e., only
homosexuals, women and blacks are victims of discrimination. That is the
underlying assumption of their fatuous policies.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Angus McQuilken said on Tuesday April 17, 2007, on NECN's NewsNight with
Jim Braude that we need to "keep guns out of the hands of people with a history
of mental illness." Here is one more example of civil rights activists for
homosexuals who indicate their bigoted hateful feelings toward persons with
disabilities. Upon what rational basis does McQuilken deny persons with a
history of mental illness the right to carry a gun? It appears that he shares
the NECN host's negative opinion of persons with disabilities.
McQuilken also said that mental illness needs to be considered for a gun
license. Why not consider homosexuality for a gun license? Homosexuals are more
violent than mental patients. Homosexuals are more likely to kill others than
persons with a history of mental illness. Typically we scrutinize the peaceful
citizens and ignore the violent ones.
The Constitution does not deny rights to persons with a history of mental
illness. Having a disability does not carry with it a constitutional prohibition
on exercising rights. Unlike homosexuals persons with disabilities do not have
wealthy politically connected TV and political spokesmen defending their rights
and corrupting the law and the courts. Why do homosexual leaders deny equal
rights to persons with disabilities?
Mr. Braude and NECN management continue to ignore my emails about his
bigoted views on persons with disabilities. Jim's current love object, Cadillac
Deval said he was "sick of the careless insults." But neither Deval nor Braude
believe that persons with disabilities have the same feelings as black people,
homosexuals and women. Persons with disabilites are as hurt by Braude's and
McQuilkjen's hate speech as black people are hurt by Imus' speech. This is the
dictionary definition of bigotry. When will it end?
McQuilken is a limousine liberal failed candidate for state office. He
reflects the unlawful liberal position on persons with disabilities, i.e., only
homosexuals, women and blacks are victims of discrimination. That is the
underlying assumption of their fatuous policies.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Thank you
Thank you
Thanks to the Cambridge Chronicle and Arlington Internist Byron Diggs for
drawing attention to the pervasive unlawful discrimination against persons with
disabilities. (BYRON R. DIGGS, Letter, "Letter-writer got it wrong," Cambridge
Chronicle, Jun 26, 2007, 28th print edition) I hope to see more.
Having intimate experience with schizophrenia Dr. Diggs surely supports
ending unlawful discrimination in providing health care to persons with
disabilities. That is the issue which began this discussion.
Thanks also to Dr. Diggs for his insights into my personal expression with
which he disagrees.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Letter: Letter-writer got it wrong
Cambridge Chronicle
Tue Jun 26, 2007, 05:36 PM EDT
Cambridge -
Roy Bercaw's enraged and nasty letter to the editor in the June 7 Chronicle
("Doctor�s bias undeniable") illustrates why his reality check keeps bouncing.
This person writes to the Chronicle often, and often unnecessarily, about
perceived threats to "persons with disabilities" from a myriad of agents, state,
local and federal, the MBTA, Cambridge, Harvard; his "enemies list" is long. Of
course, some offenses are real. But Bercaw seemingly writes of nothing else. I
note that few readers respond to his embarrassing tirades; we recognize his
letters to be a waste of time and trees.
To regain attention, he changes tactics - personal insults, distortion of what I
wrote, grandiose generalizations about doctors, journalists, et al. It is
annoying that I must defend myself against his misguided attacks; the imposed
400-word cap makes a comprehensive defense limited. Suffice to say that the
people who know me understand the ignorance of Bercaw's accusations.
In my letter to which Roy refers (Chronicle, May 31), I briefly discussed the
emergency treatment of "psych" patients in the ER, the increased risk of
violence against the patient or the staff, and the need for chemical or physical
restraint, sometimes necessary for a complete clinical assessment. My example of
an actively hallucinating, violently punching patient resisting urgently needed
evaluation and treatment is distorted by Bercaw to "' Diggs' stereotyp(ing) all
persons who arrive at the ER in an unconventional manner!" Bercaw's "example,"
"If a person with muscular dystrophy" is completely irrelevant.
For three decades, I have been an internal medicine specialist, with interest
and experience in the medical care of psychiatric patients. Several members of
my extended family were diagnosed with schizophrenia in their early 20s.
Bercaw confuses and lumps together two different situations. One scenario
involves the news of stable, mentally ill patients being �released� into the
community and met with fear, suspicion and resistance. This is prejudicial
behavior; studies show that stable, mentally ill patients are no more dangerous
than others. The second scenario involves psych patients brought to the ER.
Often, not always, such patients are unstable and dangerous to themselves and/or
staff members. The potential for violence is real, and as well designed studies
show, more likely than those in the general ER population. Bercaw�s fear of this
reality, suspicion of medical staff, and resistance to understanding what is
obvious will always remain a mystery.
BYRON R. DIGGS, MD
Arlington
Thanks to the Cambridge Chronicle and Arlington Internist Byron Diggs for
drawing attention to the pervasive unlawful discrimination against persons with
disabilities. (BYRON R. DIGGS, Letter, "Letter-writer got it wrong," Cambridge
Chronicle, Jun 26, 2007, 28th print edition) I hope to see more.
Having intimate experience with schizophrenia Dr. Diggs surely supports
ending unlawful discrimination in providing health care to persons with
disabilities. That is the issue which began this discussion.
Thanks also to Dr. Diggs for his insights into my personal expression with
which he disagrees.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Letter: Letter-writer got it wrong
Cambridge Chronicle
Tue Jun 26, 2007, 05:36 PM EDT
Cambridge -
Roy Bercaw's enraged and nasty letter to the editor in the June 7 Chronicle
("Doctor�s bias undeniable") illustrates why his reality check keeps bouncing.
This person writes to the Chronicle often, and often unnecessarily, about
perceived threats to "persons with disabilities" from a myriad of agents, state,
local and federal, the MBTA, Cambridge, Harvard; his "enemies list" is long. Of
course, some offenses are real. But Bercaw seemingly writes of nothing else. I
note that few readers respond to his embarrassing tirades; we recognize his
letters to be a waste of time and trees.
To regain attention, he changes tactics - personal insults, distortion of what I
wrote, grandiose generalizations about doctors, journalists, et al. It is
annoying that I must defend myself against his misguided attacks; the imposed
400-word cap makes a comprehensive defense limited. Suffice to say that the
people who know me understand the ignorance of Bercaw's accusations.
In my letter to which Roy refers (Chronicle, May 31), I briefly discussed the
emergency treatment of "psych" patients in the ER, the increased risk of
violence against the patient or the staff, and the need for chemical or physical
restraint, sometimes necessary for a complete clinical assessment. My example of
an actively hallucinating, violently punching patient resisting urgently needed
evaluation and treatment is distorted by Bercaw to "' Diggs' stereotyp(ing) all
persons who arrive at the ER in an unconventional manner!" Bercaw's "example,"
"If a person with muscular dystrophy" is completely irrelevant.
For three decades, I have been an internal medicine specialist, with interest
and experience in the medical care of psychiatric patients. Several members of
my extended family were diagnosed with schizophrenia in their early 20s.
Bercaw confuses and lumps together two different situations. One scenario
involves the news of stable, mentally ill patients being �released� into the
community and met with fear, suspicion and resistance. This is prejudicial
behavior; studies show that stable, mentally ill patients are no more dangerous
than others. The second scenario involves psych patients brought to the ER.
Often, not always, such patients are unstable and dangerous to themselves and/or
staff members. The potential for violence is real, and as well designed studies
show, more likely than those in the general ER population. Bercaw�s fear of this
reality, suspicion of medical staff, and resistance to understanding what is
obvious will always remain a mystery.
BYRON R. DIGGS, MD
Arlington
Psychiatric Fantasy
Psychiatric Fantasy
On Friday July 6, 2007, while discussing the new "Dangerous Book for Boys,"
and how boys are being feminized, Tony Blankley said of boys, "There are
chemical imbalances." That notion is a creation of the PR flacks for the drug
companies and the psychiatric industry.
Researchers do not drill holes through the scull and test brain matter
chemically. They use photographs. But if they did actually do a chemical
analysis of brain matter there is no chemical balance, no standard to measure
against.
A few years ago a group from Mindfreedom went on a hunger strike
challenging the American Psychiatric Association to provide evidence of a
chemical imbalance. They were unable to so do. But they continue to promote the
fantasy, of a chemical imbalance.
It is unfortunate that an educated journalist like Blankley made that
comment and was not challenged by any of your erudite guests.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
On Friday July 6, 2007, while discussing the new "Dangerous Book for Boys,"
and how boys are being feminized, Tony Blankley said of boys, "There are
chemical imbalances." That notion is a creation of the PR flacks for the drug
companies and the psychiatric industry.
Researchers do not drill holes through the scull and test brain matter
chemically. They use photographs. But if they did actually do a chemical
analysis of brain matter there is no chemical balance, no standard to measure
against.
A few years ago a group from Mindfreedom went on a hunger strike
challenging the American Psychiatric Association to provide evidence of a
chemical imbalance. They were unable to so do. But they continue to promote the
fantasy, of a chemical imbalance.
It is unfortunate that an educated journalist like Blankley made that
comment and was not challenged by any of your erudite guests.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Dual Office Holders
Dual Office Holders
Cambridge City Councilor and Court Clerk Michael Sullivan said "I don't as
a rule of thumb, schedule [City Council] things during the day." (Erin Smith,
"Double-Dip Sullivan flouts ehtics ruling," Cambridge Chronicle, May 3, 2007,
page one; and "After Ethics ruling, Sullivan seeks seat again," July 5, 2007,
page one) Many City Council committee meetings are scheduled during the day. He
would not be able to be court clerk and attend those meetings.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Dual officeholders drawing scrutiny
State panel sees potential conflict
By John C. Drake,
Boston Globe Staff
July 16, 2007
In Massachusetts, known for its healthy appetite for politics, a quirk in the
state constitution allows the state's most ambitious politicos to hold more than
one elected office.
For that, Michael Sullivan can be thankful.
Sullivan, from a storied family of politicians, was elected Middlesex County
clerk of courts last fall, replacing his 86-year-old uncle, Edward J. Sullivan,
who had stepped down after nearly 50 years. Michael Sullivan is also an elected
Cambridge city councilor.
His total pay: about $170,000 a year.
A state advisory panel for clerks of court has recommended that Sullivan drop
one of the posts, saying conflicts of interest could arise between the dual
roles. Sullivan insists he has taken steps to avoid any conflict, and has pulled
nomination papers for re election to the City Council. He said he is confident
he could continue to handle both jobs.
"It actually wasn't as demanding as I thought it would be," said Sullivan, who
has yet to decide if he will run again.
Massachusetts is one of a handful of states with few restrictions on holding two
elective positions.
Critics of dual office holding say it creates potential conflicts of interest,
allows job holders to collect two public salaries and added pension benefits,
and prevents new blood from filling public offices.
It is controversial in some states, but there has been little push to abandon
the practice in Massachusetts.
The potential conflicts include the fact that a state lawmaker who is also a
city councilor may vote on a budget that affects his own city, while other
cities also are competing for cash. In Sullivan's case, his office processes
court cases that include him as a defendant.
Besides Sullivan, other double office holders include another Cambridge city
councilor, Timothy J. Toomey Jr. , who is also a state representative; State
Representative Rosemary Sandlin, who is also a member of the Agawam School
Committee; first-year State Representative Stephen Smith, who is serving his
last year as a selectman in Everett; and state Representative Thomas Stanley ,
who is also an at-large Waltham city councilor.
To many of the politicians, the double duty is a point of pride: Not only did
the voters elect them once, they elected them twice. They boast that they know
the issues at home very well.
"I never have to 'take the temperature,' because I'm always in the middle of
everything," said Stanley, a Democrat whose Ninth Middlesex District includes
parts of Waltham and Lexington. "I have constant contact with local and state
officials as well as constituents."
He earns two public salaries: $14,874 a year plus expenses from the city of
Waltham, and $55,569 from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
One government watchdog group says the situation is acceptable, as long as the
officials are careful about avoiding conflicts.
"I think we've seen many that are able to juggle those responsibilities well,"
said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts. "Any time
you do have a dual role, whether it's elected or having outside employment,
there are potentials for conflicted interests. But frankly, I think they're less
when holding two elected offices than when in the private sector."
State ethics law focuses on preventing financial conflicts of interest. For
example, a state legislator, as a state employee, cannot obtain a contract to
provide services to the state. Also a lawmaker cannot receive a second state
salary, although there are exceptions, including faculty appointments. But state
law says there is no restriction on state officials holding local elected
office.
In other states, however, the practice has been controversial.
In New Jersey, Governor Jon Corzine is reviewing recently passed legislation
that bans dual office holding. Under the law, current dual office holders would
be grandfathered, but any current or future elected official who was elected to
a second office would have to choose one.
Brenda Erickson , a research analyst with the National Conference of State
Legislatures, said many states ban dual office holding to prevent double dipping
for salary and benefits in public coffers.
Generally, city councilors and selectmen are not considered full-time employees,
and they often hold private-sector jobs.
Stanley, the Waltham politician, said voters determine each year whether he's
doing a good job handling his local and his state responsibilities. He's up for
re election to the council and the state Legislature in alternating years.
Having so many elections is certainly time-consuming, he said. He says he
probably has knocked on every door in Waltham.
"I enjoy it," he said. "It's like breathing to me."
But not everyone agrees that dual office holders can adequately serve both
roles.
Waltham City Councilor Kathleen B. McMenimen challenged her council colleague
Stanley in the 2004 primary election for state representative.
She promised to step down from the council post if elected to the House.
The legislative seat encompasses Waltham and portions of neighboring Lexington,
and she said the needs of the two communities sometimes are in conflict.
"As state representative, he has a hard enough time balancing the needs of the
Lexington constituents with the needs of the Waltham constituents," she said.
But Stanley said he has never felt a conflict in representing both communities.
"That was a concern of mine when I was redistricted into Lexington," he said.
"But . . . the communities are more similar than one would think, and I can't
think of a situation where I've been in conflict."
In Sullivan's case, the Supreme Judicial Court's Advisory Committee on Ethical
Opinions for Clerks of the Courts weighed in on his dual roles in January.
He had asked the panel for its opinion on handling court cases involving the
City of Cambridge. The panel's conclusion was that holding both offices would be
"problematic."
The clerk's office controls the flow of cases through the courthouse and handles
evidence and court filings. A Code of Professional Responsibility requires
clerks to maintain impartiality on issues that could come before the court.
Sullivan says his office is up-front about his dual roles when cases involving
the city of Cambridge come before the court. Parties are given the opportunity
to move their cases to another clerk's jurisdiction if they are concerned about
a conflict.
Several lawmakers who had brief overlap in their local offices and their state
offices, say they decided not to run for re election to their local seats,
because of the time commitment, the need to get others involved in politics, and
potential conflicts.
"I preferred to focus on the one job," said state Representative William
Brownsberger , a Democrat who was elected to the Legislature in November while
serving as a Belmont selectman. He served out the last three months of his term
as selectmen after taking office on Beacon Hill in January.
Sandlin was elected to the Legislature in November while serving as an Agawam
School Committee member. She said she decided not to step down from the School
Committee because the vacancy would have required an expensive special election
for her community.
"I've not missed a meeting on the School Committee nor missed a vote in the
House," Sandlin said. "But of course, I'm a very energetic person."
John C. Drake can be reached at jdrake@globe.com
Cambridge City Councilor and Court Clerk Michael Sullivan said "I don't as
a rule of thumb, schedule [City Council] things during the day." (Erin Smith,
"Double-Dip Sullivan flouts ehtics ruling," Cambridge Chronicle, May 3, 2007,
page one; and "After Ethics ruling, Sullivan seeks seat again," July 5, 2007,
page one) Many City Council committee meetings are scheduled during the day. He
would not be able to be court clerk and attend those meetings.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Dual officeholders drawing scrutiny
State panel sees potential conflict
By John C. Drake,
Boston Globe Staff
July 16, 2007
In Massachusetts, known for its healthy appetite for politics, a quirk in the
state constitution allows the state's most ambitious politicos to hold more than
one elected office.
For that, Michael Sullivan can be thankful.
Sullivan, from a storied family of politicians, was elected Middlesex County
clerk of courts last fall, replacing his 86-year-old uncle, Edward J. Sullivan,
who had stepped down after nearly 50 years. Michael Sullivan is also an elected
Cambridge city councilor.
His total pay: about $170,000 a year.
A state advisory panel for clerks of court has recommended that Sullivan drop
one of the posts, saying conflicts of interest could arise between the dual
roles. Sullivan insists he has taken steps to avoid any conflict, and has pulled
nomination papers for re election to the City Council. He said he is confident
he could continue to handle both jobs.
"It actually wasn't as demanding as I thought it would be," said Sullivan, who
has yet to decide if he will run again.
Massachusetts is one of a handful of states with few restrictions on holding two
elective positions.
Critics of dual office holding say it creates potential conflicts of interest,
allows job holders to collect two public salaries and added pension benefits,
and prevents new blood from filling public offices.
It is controversial in some states, but there has been little push to abandon
the practice in Massachusetts.
The potential conflicts include the fact that a state lawmaker who is also a
city councilor may vote on a budget that affects his own city, while other
cities also are competing for cash. In Sullivan's case, his office processes
court cases that include him as a defendant.
Besides Sullivan, other double office holders include another Cambridge city
councilor, Timothy J. Toomey Jr. , who is also a state representative; State
Representative Rosemary Sandlin, who is also a member of the Agawam School
Committee; first-year State Representative Stephen Smith, who is serving his
last year as a selectman in Everett; and state Representative Thomas Stanley ,
who is also an at-large Waltham city councilor.
To many of the politicians, the double duty is a point of pride: Not only did
the voters elect them once, they elected them twice. They boast that they know
the issues at home very well.
"I never have to 'take the temperature,' because I'm always in the middle of
everything," said Stanley, a Democrat whose Ninth Middlesex District includes
parts of Waltham and Lexington. "I have constant contact with local and state
officials as well as constituents."
He earns two public salaries: $14,874 a year plus expenses from the city of
Waltham, and $55,569 from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
One government watchdog group says the situation is acceptable, as long as the
officials are careful about avoiding conflicts.
"I think we've seen many that are able to juggle those responsibilities well,"
said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts. "Any time
you do have a dual role, whether it's elected or having outside employment,
there are potentials for conflicted interests. But frankly, I think they're less
when holding two elected offices than when in the private sector."
State ethics law focuses on preventing financial conflicts of interest. For
example, a state legislator, as a state employee, cannot obtain a contract to
provide services to the state. Also a lawmaker cannot receive a second state
salary, although there are exceptions, including faculty appointments. But state
law says there is no restriction on state officials holding local elected
office.
In other states, however, the practice has been controversial.
In New Jersey, Governor Jon Corzine is reviewing recently passed legislation
that bans dual office holding. Under the law, current dual office holders would
be grandfathered, but any current or future elected official who was elected to
a second office would have to choose one.
Brenda Erickson , a research analyst with the National Conference of State
Legislatures, said many states ban dual office holding to prevent double dipping
for salary and benefits in public coffers.
Generally, city councilors and selectmen are not considered full-time employees,
and they often hold private-sector jobs.
Stanley, the Waltham politician, said voters determine each year whether he's
doing a good job handling his local and his state responsibilities. He's up for
re election to the council and the state Legislature in alternating years.
Having so many elections is certainly time-consuming, he said. He says he
probably has knocked on every door in Waltham.
"I enjoy it," he said. "It's like breathing to me."
But not everyone agrees that dual office holders can adequately serve both
roles.
Waltham City Councilor Kathleen B. McMenimen challenged her council colleague
Stanley in the 2004 primary election for state representative.
She promised to step down from the council post if elected to the House.
The legislative seat encompasses Waltham and portions of neighboring Lexington,
and she said the needs of the two communities sometimes are in conflict.
"As state representative, he has a hard enough time balancing the needs of the
Lexington constituents with the needs of the Waltham constituents," she said.
But Stanley said he has never felt a conflict in representing both communities.
"That was a concern of mine when I was redistricted into Lexington," he said.
"But . . . the communities are more similar than one would think, and I can't
think of a situation where I've been in conflict."
In Sullivan's case, the Supreme Judicial Court's Advisory Committee on Ethical
Opinions for Clerks of the Courts weighed in on his dual roles in January.
He had asked the panel for its opinion on handling court cases involving the
City of Cambridge. The panel's conclusion was that holding both offices would be
"problematic."
The clerk's office controls the flow of cases through the courthouse and handles
evidence and court filings. A Code of Professional Responsibility requires
clerks to maintain impartiality on issues that could come before the court.
Sullivan says his office is up-front about his dual roles when cases involving
the city of Cambridge come before the court. Parties are given the opportunity
to move their cases to another clerk's jurisdiction if they are concerned about
a conflict.
Several lawmakers who had brief overlap in their local offices and their state
offices, say they decided not to run for re election to their local seats,
because of the time commitment, the need to get others involved in politics, and
potential conflicts.
"I preferred to focus on the one job," said state Representative William
Brownsberger , a Democrat who was elected to the Legislature in November while
serving as a Belmont selectman. He served out the last three months of his term
as selectmen after taking office on Beacon Hill in January.
Sandlin was elected to the Legislature in November while serving as an Agawam
School Committee member. She said she decided not to step down from the School
Committee because the vacancy would have required an expensive special election
for her community.
"I've not missed a meeting on the School Committee nor missed a vote in the
House," Sandlin said. "But of course, I'm a very energetic person."
John C. Drake can be reached at jdrake@globe.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
