NY State Court Failure, FBI abuses
To address FBI malfeasance in Boston the Justice Department brought in a
Special Prosecutor to avoid the coziness among the FBI, state and local law
enforcement agencies. The crooked FBI agent John Connolly is in jail. The US AG
can appoint one in New York to bring a civil rights prosecution for the deaths
in
which DeVecchio allegedly had a part. It is not double jeopardy.
The FBI works with the crime families in more ways than one, something
that J. Edgar Hoover said he feared. Agents helping their informants is not
limited to New York or Boston. All too often there is a relaxed attitude
toward oaths of office and protecting the public which morphs into CYA and
protecting the pension.
No less than Plato raised the issue of who is watching the watchers? After
19 homicides in Boston by an FBI informant (who remains a fugitive) there is
still no cleansing of the police and the FBI in Boston. The corruption remains,
and the politicians remain silent. Until the abuses of power of the FBI (a
creature of statute) are addressed the Constitution is in jeopardy.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
MOLL TAPE A REAL KILLER
DA IS FORCED TO DROP CHARGES AGAINST 'MOB FED' IN SLAY TRIAL
New York Post
By ALEX GINSBERG
Its obvious DeVecchio was crooked- but this chick should go down for perjury for
wasting taxpayer money. She does a taped interview contradicting everything she
testified about and then thinks it won't reappear later. Let's say that
DeVecchio was...
November 1, 2007 -- She was supposed to be the government's star witness.
Instead, a mob moll whacked the Brooklyn DA's blockbuster murder case against a
former FBI agent accused of giving deadly information to the Mafia.
DUNLEAVY: 'This Guy Is Gonna Get Away With Murder'
Prosecutors have decided to dismiss all charges against Lindley DeVecchio after
reviewing tapes of interviews key witness Linda Schiro gave a decade ago that
contradicted much of her testimony this week, sources close to the case said
yesterday.
"The inconsistencies are so devastating that it's just game, set, match," said
one source. "Even without the tapes, it was a tough case."
The stunning legal collapse took place with amazing speed after reports surfaced
late Tuesday that Schiro had given an interview in 1997 in which she
specifically cleared DeVecchio of two murders and failed to mention him in
connection with a third.
"There's no question that she perjured herself in the grand jury and on the
witness stand this week," said DeVecchio lawyer Mark Bederow after listening to
the tapes. "It's not even close to consistent."
He said he had not yet received word from Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes that the
charges were to be dropped.
Village Voice reporter Tom Robbins, who spoke with Schiro in 1997, summarized
the tapes' contents in a story Tuesday on the weekly's Web site.
For example, on the 1992 murder of rival Colombo soldier Larry Lampasi, Schiro
told the Voice, "So that, Lin didn't do . . . I know that for a fact."
In court, she testified that DeVecchio got the victim's address and morning
routine so that Scarpa could kill him.
"Greg put up his thumb and said it was good information," she said.
The news brought the trial to a sudden halt yesterday, with the judge, Gustin
Reichbach, warning Schiro that she was at risk for a perjury charge and
assigning her a court-appointed lawyer. That attorney, Gary Farrell, declined to
comment, as did Hynes' office.
Schiro's daughter, also named Linda, said her mother did not want to comment
last night. But she did defend her mom, saying, "She wasn't under oath at the
time [that she spoke to the reporter.] She was under no obligation to tell the
truth."
She added, "What she says in court in front of a judge is the truth."
Meanwhile, DeVecchio was all smiles yesterday, saying he felt "a little better"
than he had throughout the three weeks of the trial, and retired with his wife
and a gaggle of supporters for a late breakfast while prosecutors and defense
attorneys reviewed the roughly two hours of tapes.
"There were not happy faces in the room - at one end of the table," said one
person present, referring to the prosecutors.
Prosecutors announced the case in March 2006, with Hynes calling it "the most
stunning example of official corruption that I have ever seen."
The allegations were that DeVecchio had leaked sensitive information to his
prized Colombo family source, Gregory "The Grim Reaper" Scarpa, that resulted in
four gangland murders.
As the case slowly made its way to trial, it became more apparent that it rested
almost completely on the word of Schiro, Scarpa's longtime girlfriend, who
claimed she'd been present for the conversations.
Her testimony on Monday appeared credible, and although zealous
cross-examination by lawyer Douglas Grover on Tuesday revealed inconsistencies,
it seemed to leave the basic core of facts intact.
Then came the tapes.
Sources familiar with the tapes said Schiro specifically says DeVecchio had
nothing to do with the 1987 murder of Scarpa prot�g�-gone-bad Joseph "Joe
Brewster" DeDomenico, nor with the 1992 killing of Lampasi.
She also fails to mention DeVecchio in connection with the 1984 murder of mob
moll Mary Bari.
Although Schiro does connect him to the 1990 killing of her son's best friend,
Patrick Porco, sources said there were glaring inconsistencies in the two
versions. In 1997, she told Robbins that DeVecchio came to Scarpa's 82nd Street
home to discuss killing Porco.
On Monday, she testified that it was a warning by phone.
A source said Schiro never mentioned the 1997 interview tapes in scores of
meetings with prosecutors in the early days of the case. He said investigators
were totally blindsided when the Robbins story hit the Internet.
Prosecutors have been paying her $2,200 a month for rent and food since March
2006.
"It's not just stubbornness," a source close to the investigation. "I still kind
of believe her. But you just can't go forward. I feel bad for the Porcos,
because if you believe the People's case, that's the one consistent part."
Mary Bari's sister, who did not want to give her name, said she didn't know what
the truth was.
"I don't know what to believe," said the sister, who did not want to give her
name. "Nothing will bring her back. If he's guilty, maybe when he dies he'll be
punished in the final judgment."
Additional reporting by Tom Liddy and Jennifer Fermino
alex.ginsberg@nypost.com
November 2, 2007
Watchdogs Give Money?
Watchdogs Give Money?
[This letter was published in the Cambridge Chronicle on Thursday November 1, 2007.]
It is business as usual in Cambridge as in other elections. And they wonder
why few people vote. Not only do campaign contributors get access to the public
officials they also get their names in the newspapers. (Matt Dunning, "As war
chests swell, City Council candidates fight for a seat," Cambridge Chronicle,
Oct 25, 2007) At the national level the lame-stream media reports how much much
money each candidate raised. Does that help to distinguish between the
candidates to
find out what they think and what kind of human being they are? The more money
the better person?
The Cambridge Chronicle celebrates Robert Winters as a "political
watchdog." But Winters is a contributor of money to some candidates. Does the
Chronicle believe that Winters is objective while giving money to some
candidates? Is it usual for watchdogs to make campaign contributions? Also
quoted is John Moot,
another contributor of money to politicians. Do campaign contributions bring
access to the media as well as to politicians?
Winters openly expresses his animosity toward persons with disabilities and
persons with disabilities who run for office. He ridicules vulnerable persons
while revealing that incumbents have an advantage. Well Duh! I never thought of
that! Does ignoring Winters' bigotry indicate that the Chronicle writers share
the negative bias toward person with disabilities? It is not as if the issue was
not brought to attention of the editors. I wrote to them and spoke with them
several times. (Matt Dunning the author of the article did not respond to my
email.) Still they condone denying persons with disabilities access to their
basic rights and privileges enjoyed by others.
Drew Faust is celebrated as the First Woman President of Harvard; Nikki
Tsongas as the only woman member of the Mass Congressional delegation; Deval
Patrick as the First Person of Color Governor of MA. But the Chronicle only
knows that they unable to find any campaign information about the First Person
With a disability to run for City Council Kathy Podgers. Does this indicate that
the Chronicle writers have bigoted attitudes toward persons with disabilities?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
As war chests swell, City Council candidates fight for a seat
By Matt Dunning/Chronicle Staff
Thu Oct 25, 2007, 11:52 AM EDT
Cambridge - As the weeks leading up to the City Council election wind down,
evidence of the impending showdown between the 15 candidates is beginning to
pile up.
In pockets of the city, placards and signs adorn laws, fences and building
facades. Residents have started receiving automated phone calls from candidates
trying to gather all the potential votes time will allow. Hanging pamphlets
dangle from doorknobs, while leaflets begin to crowd mailboxes.
Piles of a different sort have been expanding in the candidates� war chests.
Since Jan. 1, the 15 active candidates � excluding state Senator and City
Councilor Anthony Galluccio � have raised a combined $238,064 in the race for
City Council. Galluccio, who is still technically on the ballot for the Council
election Nov. 6, raised about half of that amount on his own � about $115,721 �
but has said he would not continue to serve on the Council past his current
term.
Of the 15 candidates actively pursuing a seat on the Council, incumbent
Henrietta Davis raised the most money for her campaign, raking in $38,575,
including contributions from Cambridge Neighborhoods Association Chairman John
Moot, Central Square Business Association President Carl Barron and even her own
research assistant, Penny Peters.
Tim Toomey wasn�t far behind Davis in money raised. Toomey collected $35,886 in
10 months of fundraising, including sizeable donations from the ABCC
Investigators Association, a Boston Police patrolmen�s association and Boston
Fire Fighters Local 718.
Among the challengers, Edward Sullivan topped the pack at $24,730 raised since
January, with contributions coming from former City Councilor Bill Walsh � who
spent time in jail for bank fraud in the 1990s � as well as Fire Chief John
Gelinas and erstwhile state Senate candidate Timothy Flaherty. Sam Seidel, an
urban planner, collected donations from former state Sen. Jarrett Barrios and
political watchdog Robert Winters, among others, and found himself nipping at
Sullivan�s heals in the challengers� pool with $21,296.
Perhaps the most famous name to appear on anyone�s donor list was that of former
Cantabrigian and New York Knicks player Patrick Ewing, who gave $500 to the
campaign efforts of Kevin Moore.
No campaign finance information could be found for candidates Kathy Podgers and
Gregg Moree.
Seidel, who was defeated in the 2005 election, said he felt as though his
experience in his first election might give him an edge this year.
�Each election season has its own dynamic,� Seidel said. �In 2005, I was brand
new to the voters of Cambridge, so there was a lot of learning all the way
around.�
Seidel also noted that there were no vacant seats on the Council prior to the
2005 election. This year, with Galluccio promising to leave the Council behind,
Seidel said 2007 may be the best opportunity he�ll have to make run at the
Council.
�That makes this effort feel different than the last,� Seidel said. �I never
want to count anything before it hatches, but somebody is going to fill that
vacancy, and we have a very clear goal in front of us.�
Though the final two weeks before the election are sure to be tense for the 15
candidates, Winters said he was hard-pressed to recall a quieter buildup to
Election Day in recent memory.
�This is a very quiet election season,� Winters said. �I�m kind of bewildered by
it. Barring any major crisis that sends everybody into a panic, this will be a
very sleepy election.�
Sleepy elections, Winters said, are usually good news for incumbent candidates.
�Incumbency is huge,� Winters said. �It�s a very hard thing to get past. The
people I consider to be really safe are Tim Toomey and David Maher.�
�Of course, that�s the last thing either one of those guys want to hear,� he
added.
Indeed, the philosophy in Cambridge when running for City Council is �run
scared,� which is to say candidates would be loathe to tell voters they feel the
least bit confident they�ll pull enough number-one votes to win.
�No candidate wants voters to think he or she is safe,� Winters said. �That way,
they don�t assume their first choice for the Council will get elected, and they
don�t wander off to support another candidate.�
Running scared is exactly what Councilor incumbent Marjorie Decker said she�s
doing this election year. With other progressive candidates such as Craig
Kelley, Jonathan Janik and Sam Seidel in the mix, Decker said she makes it clear
to each voter she meets that she�ll need every one of their votes to win her
fifth consecutive term on the Council.
�I tell each and everyone of my constituents, �Don�t assume that I have the
voter base to get elected,�� Decker said. �The only way I get re-elected is with
the [requisite] 10 percent of No. 1 votes.�
Another incumbent Winters said might need to adapt the �running scared� mantra
is Brian Murphy. Murphy has a long history of service to the city, but may lack
the flash to win out over a challenger like Seidel, Winters said.
�Brian Murphy is as competent as they come, but he�s not a screamer, and he�s
not trying to make headlines,� Winters said. �He�s a person who�s potentially
vulnerable because of that.�
Murphy�s campaign treasurer, Daniel Schlozman, said he agreed that running
scared was a good idea for any candidate, particularly incumbents.
�It�s unlikely [Cambridge] will see a high voter turnout this year,� Schlozman
said. �I wouldn�t be shocked if an incumbent or two loses.�
One candidate hoping to be the beneficiary of some of those wandering votes is
Mid-Cambridge resident Larry Ward. Without the advantage of much name
recognition in the political arena, Ward said he felt good about his prospects
heading into the final weeks before the election.
�I love my chances,� Ward said. �Any time you have a vacancy, it creates hope.
Incumbency is a tough thing to overcome, but I think people in Cambridge are
really ready for a change.�
[This letter was published in the Cambridge Chronicle on Thursday November 1, 2007.]
It is business as usual in Cambridge as in other elections. And they wonder
why few people vote. Not only do campaign contributors get access to the public
officials they also get their names in the newspapers. (Matt Dunning, "As war
chests swell, City Council candidates fight for a seat," Cambridge Chronicle,
Oct 25, 2007) At the national level the lame-stream media reports how much much
money each candidate raised. Does that help to distinguish between the
candidates to
find out what they think and what kind of human being they are? The more money
the better person?
The Cambridge Chronicle celebrates Robert Winters as a "political
watchdog." But Winters is a contributor of money to some candidates. Does the
Chronicle believe that Winters is objective while giving money to some
candidates? Is it usual for watchdogs to make campaign contributions? Also
quoted is John Moot,
another contributor of money to politicians. Do campaign contributions bring
access to the media as well as to politicians?
Winters openly expresses his animosity toward persons with disabilities and
persons with disabilities who run for office. He ridicules vulnerable persons
while revealing that incumbents have an advantage. Well Duh! I never thought of
that! Does ignoring Winters' bigotry indicate that the Chronicle writers share
the negative bias toward person with disabilities? It is not as if the issue was
not brought to attention of the editors. I wrote to them and spoke with them
several times. (Matt Dunning the author of the article did not respond to my
email.) Still they condone denying persons with disabilities access to their
basic rights and privileges enjoyed by others.
Drew Faust is celebrated as the First Woman President of Harvard; Nikki
Tsongas as the only woman member of the Mass Congressional delegation; Deval
Patrick as the First Person of Color Governor of MA. But the Chronicle only
knows that they unable to find any campaign information about the First Person
With a disability to run for City Council Kathy Podgers. Does this indicate that
the Chronicle writers have bigoted attitudes toward persons with disabilities?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
As war chests swell, City Council candidates fight for a seat
By Matt Dunning/Chronicle Staff
Thu Oct 25, 2007, 11:52 AM EDT
Cambridge - As the weeks leading up to the City Council election wind down,
evidence of the impending showdown between the 15 candidates is beginning to
pile up.
In pockets of the city, placards and signs adorn laws, fences and building
facades. Residents have started receiving automated phone calls from candidates
trying to gather all the potential votes time will allow. Hanging pamphlets
dangle from doorknobs, while leaflets begin to crowd mailboxes.
Piles of a different sort have been expanding in the candidates� war chests.
Since Jan. 1, the 15 active candidates � excluding state Senator and City
Councilor Anthony Galluccio � have raised a combined $238,064 in the race for
City Council. Galluccio, who is still technically on the ballot for the Council
election Nov. 6, raised about half of that amount on his own � about $115,721 �
but has said he would not continue to serve on the Council past his current
term.
Of the 15 candidates actively pursuing a seat on the Council, incumbent
Henrietta Davis raised the most money for her campaign, raking in $38,575,
including contributions from Cambridge Neighborhoods Association Chairman John
Moot, Central Square Business Association President Carl Barron and even her own
research assistant, Penny Peters.
Tim Toomey wasn�t far behind Davis in money raised. Toomey collected $35,886 in
10 months of fundraising, including sizeable donations from the ABCC
Investigators Association, a Boston Police patrolmen�s association and Boston
Fire Fighters Local 718.
Among the challengers, Edward Sullivan topped the pack at $24,730 raised since
January, with contributions coming from former City Councilor Bill Walsh � who
spent time in jail for bank fraud in the 1990s � as well as Fire Chief John
Gelinas and erstwhile state Senate candidate Timothy Flaherty. Sam Seidel, an
urban planner, collected donations from former state Sen. Jarrett Barrios and
political watchdog Robert Winters, among others, and found himself nipping at
Sullivan�s heals in the challengers� pool with $21,296.
Perhaps the most famous name to appear on anyone�s donor list was that of former
Cantabrigian and New York Knicks player Patrick Ewing, who gave $500 to the
campaign efforts of Kevin Moore.
No campaign finance information could be found for candidates Kathy Podgers and
Gregg Moree.
Seidel, who was defeated in the 2005 election, said he felt as though his
experience in his first election might give him an edge this year.
�Each election season has its own dynamic,� Seidel said. �In 2005, I was brand
new to the voters of Cambridge, so there was a lot of learning all the way
around.�
Seidel also noted that there were no vacant seats on the Council prior to the
2005 election. This year, with Galluccio promising to leave the Council behind,
Seidel said 2007 may be the best opportunity he�ll have to make run at the
Council.
�That makes this effort feel different than the last,� Seidel said. �I never
want to count anything before it hatches, but somebody is going to fill that
vacancy, and we have a very clear goal in front of us.�
Though the final two weeks before the election are sure to be tense for the 15
candidates, Winters said he was hard-pressed to recall a quieter buildup to
Election Day in recent memory.
�This is a very quiet election season,� Winters said. �I�m kind of bewildered by
it. Barring any major crisis that sends everybody into a panic, this will be a
very sleepy election.�
Sleepy elections, Winters said, are usually good news for incumbent candidates.
�Incumbency is huge,� Winters said. �It�s a very hard thing to get past. The
people I consider to be really safe are Tim Toomey and David Maher.�
�Of course, that�s the last thing either one of those guys want to hear,� he
added.
Indeed, the philosophy in Cambridge when running for City Council is �run
scared,� which is to say candidates would be loathe to tell voters they feel the
least bit confident they�ll pull enough number-one votes to win.
�No candidate wants voters to think he or she is safe,� Winters said. �That way,
they don�t assume their first choice for the Council will get elected, and they
don�t wander off to support another candidate.�
Running scared is exactly what Councilor incumbent Marjorie Decker said she�s
doing this election year. With other progressive candidates such as Craig
Kelley, Jonathan Janik and Sam Seidel in the mix, Decker said she makes it clear
to each voter she meets that she�ll need every one of their votes to win her
fifth consecutive term on the Council.
�I tell each and everyone of my constituents, �Don�t assume that I have the
voter base to get elected,�� Decker said. �The only way I get re-elected is with
the [requisite] 10 percent of No. 1 votes.�
Another incumbent Winters said might need to adapt the �running scared� mantra
is Brian Murphy. Murphy has a long history of service to the city, but may lack
the flash to win out over a challenger like Seidel, Winters said.
�Brian Murphy is as competent as they come, but he�s not a screamer, and he�s
not trying to make headlines,� Winters said. �He�s a person who�s potentially
vulnerable because of that.�
Murphy�s campaign treasurer, Daniel Schlozman, said he agreed that running
scared was a good idea for any candidate, particularly incumbents.
�It�s unlikely [Cambridge] will see a high voter turnout this year,� Schlozman
said. �I wouldn�t be shocked if an incumbent or two loses.�
One candidate hoping to be the beneficiary of some of those wandering votes is
Mid-Cambridge resident Larry Ward. Without the advantage of much name
recognition in the political arena, Ward said he felt good about his prospects
heading into the final weeks before the election.
�I love my chances,� Ward said. �Any time you have a vacancy, it creates hope.
Incumbency is a tough thing to overcome, but I think people in Cambridge are
really ready for a change.�
You Scratch My Back . . .
You Scratch My Back . . .
[This letter was published in the Boston Herald on Thursday November 1, 2007]
Howie Carr bashed Massachusetts political hacks for 20 years. They appointed
judges who say he cannot work where he wants and may not work temporarily until
the appeal is heard. Is it my imagination or are these political appointees
doing a favor for the political hacks who run the MA government by keeping this
critic off of the air?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
RKO�s Carr is silenced on appeal
Judge nixes TKK work as contract fight rages
By Laurel J. Sweet
Boston Herald
Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - Updated 1d 7h ago
A state Appeals Court judge has blocked Herald columnist Howie Carr from taking
over WTKK�s morning drive show while his struggle to free himself from his
contract with WRKO drags out in court, leaving Carr�s future in Boston radio
uncertain.
Judge Andrew Grainger yesterday told Carr, one of the city�s most popular talk
jocks and a best-selling author, to forget about pleading his case to the full
Appeals Court.
�This is not one of those extraordinary cases that warrant appellate
consideration prior to full judgment,� Grainger wrote in his nine-page decision.
�In these circumstances, there is no good reason for opening the door to
multiple appeals when the issues may all be argued together at the conclusion of
the case.�
Nancy Sterling, spokeswoman for Mintz Levin, the law firm representing Carr,
said in a statement, �We�re disappointed in the ruling, but we still believe the
final outcome will be in Howie Carr�s favor. We are currently reviewing all
options before determining our next steps.�
FM station WTKK 96.9 FM has reportedly offered Carr $7 million to jump ship from
AM rival WRKO 680, where he has insisted he no longer wants to work, despite the
station�s matching offer.
WRKO spokesman George Regan said, �We�ve more than made our case clear and we
have nothing else to add.� Spokesmen for WTKK owner Greater Media did not
respond to calls for comment.
The contract Carr signed with �RKO parent Entercom on June 3, 2002, expired last
month, but provides the broadcast company with a 180-day �right of first refusal�
to match any offer Carr receives from another station.
Carr, whose new five-year deal with Greater Media is on hold indefinitely,
maintains the provision is not valid.
Grainger ruled, �The first refusal right here is a mutual and prospective
balancing of risk and reward by parties doing their best to anticipate the
future value of the proverbial bird in hand.�
lsweet@bostonherald.com
[This letter was published in the Boston Herald on Thursday November 1, 2007]
Howie Carr bashed Massachusetts political hacks for 20 years. They appointed
judges who say he cannot work where he wants and may not work temporarily until
the appeal is heard. Is it my imagination or are these political appointees
doing a favor for the political hacks who run the MA government by keeping this
critic off of the air?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
RKO�s Carr is silenced on appeal
Judge nixes TKK work as contract fight rages
By Laurel J. Sweet
Boston Herald
Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - Updated 1d 7h ago
A state Appeals Court judge has blocked Herald columnist Howie Carr from taking
over WTKK�s morning drive show while his struggle to free himself from his
contract with WRKO drags out in court, leaving Carr�s future in Boston radio
uncertain.
Judge Andrew Grainger yesterday told Carr, one of the city�s most popular talk
jocks and a best-selling author, to forget about pleading his case to the full
Appeals Court.
�This is not one of those extraordinary cases that warrant appellate
consideration prior to full judgment,� Grainger wrote in his nine-page decision.
�In these circumstances, there is no good reason for opening the door to
multiple appeals when the issues may all be argued together at the conclusion of
the case.�
Nancy Sterling, spokeswoman for Mintz Levin, the law firm representing Carr,
said in a statement, �We�re disappointed in the ruling, but we still believe the
final outcome will be in Howie Carr�s favor. We are currently reviewing all
options before determining our next steps.�
FM station WTKK 96.9 FM has reportedly offered Carr $7 million to jump ship from
AM rival WRKO 680, where he has insisted he no longer wants to work, despite the
station�s matching offer.
WRKO spokesman George Regan said, �We�ve more than made our case clear and we
have nothing else to add.� Spokesmen for WTKK owner Greater Media did not
respond to calls for comment.
The contract Carr signed with �RKO parent Entercom on June 3, 2002, expired last
month, but provides the broadcast company with a 180-day �right of first refusal�
to match any offer Carr receives from another station.
Carr, whose new five-year deal with Greater Media is on hold indefinitely,
maintains the provision is not valid.
Grainger ruled, �The first refusal right here is a mutual and prospective
balancing of risk and reward by parties doing their best to anticipate the
future value of the proverbial bird in hand.�
lsweet@bostonherald.com
Deval and the Biotech Devils
Deval and the Biotech Devils
Deval Patrick lost touch with reality. His moonbat base may believe his
allegation that his $1 billion boondoggle is "critical for Massachusetts to help
biotech, pharmaceutical and other life-sciences companies - or firms will be
lured away."(Jay Fitzgerald and Scott Van Voorhis, "Gov: Bio-bill delay costly,"
Boston Herald, October 31, 2007) Novartis, Biogen etc., landed in Cambridge
because of access to academic researchers at MIT and Harvard. They are not going
anywhere.
Stealing more money from the poor taxpayer to give to the wealthy biotech
industry is not necessary. Deval sounds more and more each day like the Harvard
corporate lawyer that he is.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Gov: Bio-bill delay costly
Slams pol on Novartis loss
By Jay Fitzgerald and Scott Van Voorhis
Boston Herald
Wednesday, October 31, 2007 |
Gov. Deval Patrick yesterday blamed the Legislature’s lack of action on his $1
billion life-sciences bill for Novartis AG’s decision to build a new biotech
facility in Singapore, not Massachusetts.
Patrick, who has been critical of the slow pace of legislative action on a
number of his proposals, told lawmakers at a State House hearing yesterday that
it’s critical for Massachusetts to help biotech, pharmaceutical and other
life-sciences companies - or firms will be lured away.
He said some biotech companies have decided to expand operations here, partly
because of state economic incentives offered to them.
“But not everyone is convinced that we mean it,” he told the Joint Committee on
Economic Development and Emerging Technologies.
“One large company - Novartis - was prepared to invest hundreds of millions of
dollars in over 700,000 square feet of lab and office space creating over 400
new, well-paying jobs. But our inaction on this proposal over many months caused
them to abandon those plans here and focus instead on other states.”
Patrick was referring to Novartis’ decision to build a new major plant in
Singapore, after looking at sites in Massachusetts.
After the hearing, Patrick declined to give details about what Novartis wanted.
But he reiterated that the Legislature’s failure to quickly pass his bill had an
impact.
“Inaction sends a message,” said Patrick.
In the past, lawmakers have bristled at Patrick’s criticism of the slow pace of
work at the State House, suggesting the first-year governor doesn’t understand
the legislative process. A handful of key lawmakers have also questioned whether
the biotech industry should get so much extra money from the state.
Jeff Lockwood, a spokesman for Novartis, declined to comment on whether the slow
legislative progress was behind the company’s decision to expand in Singapore.
He said the move was based on a “multitude of factors.”
Article URL:
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1041566
Deval Patrick lost touch with reality. His moonbat base may believe his
allegation that his $1 billion boondoggle is "critical for Massachusetts to help
biotech, pharmaceutical and other life-sciences companies - or firms will be
lured away."(Jay Fitzgerald and Scott Van Voorhis, "Gov: Bio-bill delay costly,"
Boston Herald, October 31, 2007) Novartis, Biogen etc., landed in Cambridge
because of access to academic researchers at MIT and Harvard. They are not going
anywhere.
Stealing more money from the poor taxpayer to give to the wealthy biotech
industry is not necessary. Deval sounds more and more each day like the Harvard
corporate lawyer that he is.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Gov: Bio-bill delay costly
Slams pol on Novartis loss
By Jay Fitzgerald and Scott Van Voorhis
Boston Herald
Wednesday, October 31, 2007 |
Gov. Deval Patrick yesterday blamed the Legislature’s lack of action on his $1
billion life-sciences bill for Novartis AG’s decision to build a new biotech
facility in Singapore, not Massachusetts.
Patrick, who has been critical of the slow pace of legislative action on a
number of his proposals, told lawmakers at a State House hearing yesterday that
it’s critical for Massachusetts to help biotech, pharmaceutical and other
life-sciences companies - or firms will be lured away.
He said some biotech companies have decided to expand operations here, partly
because of state economic incentives offered to them.
“But not everyone is convinced that we mean it,” he told the Joint Committee on
Economic Development and Emerging Technologies.
“One large company - Novartis - was prepared to invest hundreds of millions of
dollars in over 700,000 square feet of lab and office space creating over 400
new, well-paying jobs. But our inaction on this proposal over many months caused
them to abandon those plans here and focus instead on other states.”
Patrick was referring to Novartis’ decision to build a new major plant in
Singapore, after looking at sites in Massachusetts.
After the hearing, Patrick declined to give details about what Novartis wanted.
But he reiterated that the Legislature’s failure to quickly pass his bill had an
impact.
“Inaction sends a message,” said Patrick.
In the past, lawmakers have bristled at Patrick’s criticism of the slow pace of
work at the State House, suggesting the first-year governor doesn’t understand
the legislative process. A handful of key lawmakers have also questioned whether
the biotech industry should get so much extra money from the state.
Jeff Lockwood, a spokesman for Novartis, declined to comment on whether the slow
legislative progress was behind the company’s decision to expand in Singapore.
He said the move was based on a “multitude of factors.”
Article URL:
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1041566
October 28, 2007
Copperfield's Bahama Mamas
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
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 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
