Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Re: We Need People Of Proven Competence On The Private Side In Politics

----- Original Message -----

From: Joe
To: Dean Lawrence R. Velvel
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 2:44 PM
Subject: RE: We Need People Of Proven Competence On The Private Side In Politics.

The wealthy controlling elite give us a political system and the illusion of representation...there is no representation for the largest majority of people and never has been...this system should be a page of history long ago turned and forgotten.

Why would anyone want to perpetuate this...give energy to a system that is saturated with corruption with no sense of anything real and sane.

New candidates will do nothing but stall a transition to something 'else'. Only the void that our creative spirit should fill, stands between now and evolving into the future.

Supporting 'their' system will bring no real change for 'you.' Don't be pulled into their consciousness. Liberate yourself and fill your mind with positive thoughts about what can be, not the decay of what has been.

Go forward, don't stand on this 500 year old treadmill...only supporting those who have given us the treadmill...the very wealthy and influential control addicts!

joe


From: Dean Lawrence R. Velvel [mailto:velvel@mslaw.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 2:36 PM
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Subject: We Need People Of Proven Competence On The Private Side In Politics.


April 24, 2006

Re: We Need People Of Proven Competence On The Private Side In Politics.

From: Dean Lawrence R. Velvel VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com

Dear Colleagues:

It is this writer’s thought, and I believe the facts support, that today the vast majority of our politicians are professional politicians. That is to say, most of them have spent all or nearly all of their adult lives in politics. Relatively few of them have had decently long careers in the private sector. Still fewer have had what could be called truly significant careers in the private sector -- the kind of career that, for example, Jon Corzine had, or Tom Coburn (to choose both a liberal and an arch conservative). Some have been government prosecutors (usually state rather than federal government prosecutors, one imagines -- i.e., have been a state’s attorney as opposed to a U.S. attorney, one imagines). But even if it is harsh to say so, I don’t think that really counts. For being a state’s attorney is, and even being a U.S. attorney often is, a highly political job. It is not like being on the private side.

It may be perverse to say so, but one can’t help wondering whether the fact that so few politicians have significant experience on the private side, and even fewer have been major successes there, is part of the problem with today’s politicians. If it is, one equally wonders whether it ought to be one of the factors addressed by the new third party which this blogger believes is the only way this country is likely to overcome the political problems plaguing it.

Politicians who have had no private careers, still less significant ones, have nothing to fall back on if they lose office. The best they usually can hope for, perhaps the only thing they can hope for, is to become highly paid lobbyists -- for a federal politician, this means to become one of the K Street crowd. But politicians don’t want to lose elections regardless of the possibility of becoming another of the locusts of K Street or its state-level equivalents. Those who have had no significant private careers, and have nothing to fall back on, are therefore desperate to stay in office. This must be one of the reasons they are so willing to lie, cheat and steal, so to speak, to remain in office. That is, this must be one of the reasons they talk out of both sides or all four sides of their mouths, why they are dishonest, why they lust after the legalized bribes called campaign contributions, why they do the bidding of the wealthy while screwing over the common man, why they are too cowardly to stand up to evil. When you have nothing to fall back on, after all, your choices are more circumscribed than those of someone who can say, “To hell with you. I’ll go back to a satisfying job delivering babies.” Or “I’ll open my own investment bank.” Or, as once (and for decades) was true of major figures in the Executive, “I will go back to being a senior partner in a Wall Street or La Salle Street law firm,” or sometimes even a downtown Washington law firm.

There is another factor involved, too. People on the private side, and even the more so among those who are major successes there, of necessity have the ethos of getting the job done, the ethos of accomplishment. This is worlds apart from the political ethos, which is to talk, talk, talk, not to get the job done, to talk, talk, talk rather than to accomplish great things, to try to offend nobody, or at least as few as possible, rather than to take well thought out positions. The ethos of getting the job done seems to be sadly lacking among professional politicians, who talk, talk, talk and do so in a way that they hope will advance their wish that everyone will like them, or at least that nobody will dislike them.

If I am right in thinking that people with long, significant careers on the private side, those who have been major successes there (unlike George Bush, who was a major failure there), would bring to politics some characteristics that are sorely needed there, then this is plainly something that a new third party should be cognizant of. This is the more true because it is unrealistic to expect the professional pols of our two current parties to encourage their own replacement by a different breed of cat -- even if the new breed of cat is in some respects a throwback to the successful private side types who were so prominent, indeed preeminent, among the founding fathers whose veneration is an American civic religion (albeit one honored in the breach).

But the idea that more of our politicians -- perhaps even most of them -- should be persons with records of success on the private side does raise certain questions and does give rise to certain criticisms. To begin with there is the question of whether successful people will leave their careers to run for and hold office, and will do so despite the savage, often irresponsible nature of the present day media. My personal suspicion is that, despite the good for nothing elements of the media, in a climate which is welcoming apart from such elements, the answer would be yes for a lot of persons. Not all, but a lot. There used to be a tradition of public service in this country that was illustrated by major private side figures like Root, Stimson, Acheson, Forrestal, Stevenson, Richardson, Dillon and Vance. One suspects that a lot of successful private side people today, too, would be interested in service if we encouraged them to it and respected them for it, and if they felt that they would not be called upon to abase oneself as current politicians do. Nor would they have to serve “time without end.” Four years, six years, eight years would be sufficient from the standpoint of the public interest. If they do not fall into the trap of Potomac fever, and do not fall in love with the ego gratifying perquisites of public office (to which they should be less susceptible than professional pols because they, unlike the pols, get similar gratification on the private side), then four or six or eight years might be sufficient from the individual’s standpoint in many or most cases as well as from the standpoint of the public interest.

It is also said that individuals who are successful on the private side expect their orders to be followed without question. They are unprepared for the extensive discussion and compromises of public life, it is claimed. If this is true, it is to some extent desirable, not undesirable. For it reflects the ethos of getting things done, which is exactly the ethos needed in public life. But beyond this, the universal accuracy of the criticism is subject to serious question. Lots of private endeavors involve compromise. (If you wish to test the truth of this, try being a private lawyer in a large multi-party, multi-multi-lawyer trial.) As well, the famous figures of bygone years from the private side who were also major governmental servants, illustrate that people from the private side can indulge the necessary give and take, can make the needed compromises. We are, after all, discussing the need for people who have shown they can be successful, not private side hacks like George Bush or, for that matter, Rumsfeld or Cheney, who were nothing but professional pols chosen to head private companies strictly because of their political connectedness and who, especially Cheney, did not necessarily do such a hot job on the private side.

Then there are a couple of possibly twinned criticisms . To seek candidates who are proven successes on the private side may be criticized as elitist and as too likely to unearth many more conservatives than liberals. Well, if it is elitist, so be it. We need competence, and if it is elitist to seek those who have demonstrated it, then call me elitist. Not to mention that competence comes from a host of walks of life, has no racial, religious or gender limits, and will be shown by lots of people who have worked themselves up from nothing. And plenty of people who are competent will be liberals, especially perhaps those who have had to work themselves up from nothing. Competence, after all, is not the exclusive preserve of the conservative. (Nor is incompetence, notwithstanding Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of that inept crowd.)

There is also the fact that proven competence on the private side will not necessarily translate into competence in political matters. Bill Frist perhaps exemplifies. But this does not alter the fact that, given the pass to which we have been brought by our host of professional pols of demonstrated incompetence, it would be wise to try people who in other endeavors have demonstrated competence. Remember, after all, Root, Stimson, Acheson and the others named above.

And, finally, there is the question of whether one considers certain types of jobs to be private side jobs, or equivalent to them even if the jobs are technically governmental ones. One thinks of two professions in particular, academics at state universities and the military. With regard to universities, my own view is that it makes no difference whether they are state or private. They are highly political entities with the same kind of non-accomplishment-oriented talk, talk, talk ethos as government itself. Yet there are those whose success in higher education bespeaks an attitude of getting the job done and bespeaks competence. So, in this writer’s view, it really depends on the person rather than on the fact that one comes from higher (or previous) education. As to the military, one admits to being a little leery because the military of today is so often a highly political institution where, despite often very high levels of innate ability, people have nevertheless adopted and in their pores absorbed don’t-rock-the-boat, CYA attitudes that are too much like those of professional pols. In this regard, one’s view is not wholly unaffected by the fact that too many generals went along with the disasters of Viet Nam and Iraq, and that, despite his reputation for alleged candor and forthrightness, John McCain, a military hero, not only got himself involved in the Charles Keating affair, but of late seems to have become no better than any other pol in kowtowing to the worst elements in pursuit of his desire to be President. Nor is one’s view wholly unaffected by the fact that Colin Powell, in service of their desire to invade Iraq, capitulated to and lied for his deeply incompetent masters, the three stooges, aka George, Dick and Don.*


*This posting represents the personal views of Lawrence R. Velvel. If you wish to respond to this email/blog, please email your response to me at velvel@mslaw.edu. Your response may be posted on the blog if you have no objection; please tell me if you do object.




----- Original Message -----

From: MATTHEW
To: Dean Lawrence R. Velvel
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:14 PM
Subject: We Need People Of Proven Competence

I am including as an attachment (or you may go here) an analysis to provide a possible context and perspective to your latest e-mail: We Need People Of Proven Competence On The Private Side In Politics. Though I am cautious about LaRouche, I think in at least this one instance, he is correct in warning of an imminent hyperinflationary collapse. In the economic sphere, I see little evidence of the kind of competence needed to avert complete disaster. If the analysis is correct, then your concerns expressed in We Need People Of Proven Competence... are dangerously inadequate.

I look forward to more of your insights.

Matt

----- Original Message -----

From: harvey
To: Dean Lawrence R. Velvel
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: We Need People Of Proven Competence On The Private Side In Politics.

Dear Larry:

I think that your reference to George, Dick and Don as the Three Stooges is an insult to The Three Stooges. What's not to love about Moe, Curly, et al.? I still laugh when thinking how they wallpapered every piece of furniture to the walls. At least they got the job done. No, George, Dick and Don are are really the Three Amigos. See this worst movie of all time and you will understand.

Harvey



For Posting

----- Original Message -----

From: CQ
To: velvel@mslaw.edu
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:18 AM
Subject: What you need to be a politician

Dear Dean Velvel,

Your newsletter describing the necessary background for an effective and ethical politician reminded me of Robert Heinlein's novel Stranger in a Strange Land. According to the laws of the land, no one who had ever shown political ambition was allowed to run for high office. Qualfied and ethical people were chosen to run for office out of a pool of high-quality candidates. If the person did a very, very good job, he (or she) was allowed to leave after his first term and go back to his normal life. If they did not do a good job, they were required to stay on for an extra term and clear up their mistakes before they were could resume their former life.

Many people nowadays are clearly frightened of what is required to enter public service. Apart from enormous amounts of money - which anyone will tell you is virtually impossible to acquire honestly - they are subjected to invasion of their private lives, their wives and families lose any privacy or security they may have once had, and their lives and those around them are changed forever, not often in a good way. Women who choose to run for office have a spotlight shone on their sexual lives in particular, which is an invasion of privacy that few are willing to tolerate. I am mystified as well by the complete change in people like Powell and McCain, both of whom I respected although I do not share their political leanings, and both of whom should have known better from their personal experience that wars should never be entered into illegally or without just cause and practices like torture and unlimited and often undocumented detention should never be resorted to for any reason. There is no good end to a bad war. It is a terrible dilemma that is showing itself in democracies all over the world as people become more and more distanced from the people who run their countries and increasingly try to run their lives.

Carmelita

----- Original Message -----

From: Anthony D'Amato
To: Dean Lawrence R. Velvel
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 3:56 PM
Subject: Response

Truman and Eisenhower had great faults, but they were the only two non-liars we've had as president since 1932. It is interesting that they also surrounded themselves with accomplished thinkers. Come to think of it, on this latter score, so did Roosevelt. It's been downhill ever since, so that by the current administration the only test is abject loyalty. And anyone who is abjectly loyal can't possibly be a thinker. To pass Bush's loyalty test you have to be quite stupid.

Politics is cheapening itself to the point of public ridicule. When I was in grade school the teacher would ask, "How many of you boys want to someday be President of the United States?" and everyone raised their hand (except me, I recall). Today the same question would be met with the response: "duh?"

The problem with Dean Velvel's statement is that it is so nostalgic. Imagine wanting to be a public servant. Politicians these days are in it for the money, and the money (not the salary) makes millionaires out of Senators and most Congresspersons. To be that hungry for money you have to welcome bribery and corruption, and the only restraint is that it has to be very carefully hidden. But lobbyists, I'm sure, are getting better and better at hiding it. Abramoff may be a dying breed, with his box office seats and his vacations in Bermuda. Just deposit the cash in my Cayman account, Abe, and I'll buy the damn tickets myself.

By the way, as long as I'm rambling, why hasn't Elliot Spitzer gone after crooked politicians the way he's gone after crooked business executives? Perhaps he doesn't want to anger the folks who may turn out to be his colleagues when he joins the political arena?

And why, oh why, do law schools invite Supreme Court justices to speak to the students? Why do they invite politicians to give commencement addresses? Are they trying to pass these characters off as role models?

Anthony D'Amato


----- Original Message -----

From: Frank
To: velvel@mslaw.edu
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 3:28 PM
Subject: Piece on 4/24.

I enjoyed your (rather lengthy) piece today. Who's qualified to run for public office has been an irritant to me for years. Why are Harvard MBA's (excluding George Bush) so much more in demand than those from Northwestern University or MIT (Sloan School of Management)? Is the program any better? The "old boy" network!

To succeed in politics you need a lot of support financially and politically. You have to photograph well too. I'm surprised that McCain made it this far, if it hadn't been his war record. I believe John Kerry would have won if he had more sex appeal.

Jimmy Carter was supposed to be a nuclear engineer yet he couldn't pronounce the word "nuclear". He was a peanut farmer. Not very impressive, but he won!

Harry Truman ran a hat shop. Ronald Reagan was an actor with a two-bit education. Most politicians aren't very bright, but they are glib, and they often have a quick wit.
You're right about CEO's expecting things to be done their way, and quickly. Yet CEO's delegate a lot, just as presidents, and have limited first hand knowledge about anything. Steve Jobs was often called a blowhard and a fraud, but look at the success at Apple.

That Karl Rove is out of the loop is shown by the Kid's (Maureen Dowd's name for "W") inability to do anything right. Iraq reminds me of the story about beating a dead horse. Bush doesn't know HOW to get out of Iraq otherwise he would have done so by now.

I had thought of an independent agency (like Consumer Reports) who would evaluate on a scale of 1-10 qualifications of presidential candidates. Some of the factors would be intelligence, success in the private sector, languages spoken; other talents (like music, art, literature); whether he actually worked at a job, or had rich parents; psychological profile (does God tell him to go to war?), and whether he respects other cultures.

Unfortunately, most Americans would not care, and would vote for the man who promises to put a chicken in every pot. (Hmmmm ... sounds familiar).

Why don't YOU run for president?

Frank

Re: The Price of Gasoline

April 25, 2006

Re: The Price of Gasoline.

From: Dean Lawrence R. Velvel VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com

Dear Colleagues:

Recently I taped a one hour television interview on the price of gasoline with Public Citizen’s Energy Director, Tyson Slocum. The interview will appear on the MSL Educational Forum in New England on Comcast’s Channel CN8 on Sunday, April 30th at 11 a.m., and in the mid-Atlantic states it will be on the same channel on Sunday, May 7th, at 9 a.m.

Slocum’s most fundamental point in the interview was that the high price of gasoline at the pump is not attributable to the costs of drilling and refining oil, costs that are far less than the price at the pump. The high price at the pump, he said, is almost entirely attributable to the prices of crude oil and gasoline being driven up by wealthy speculators in the crude oil and gasoline futures markets. The speculators, of course, are trying to make a financial killing (for which the rest of us suffer at the pump).

Slocum’s views are so important to the forthcoming national debate on gasoline prices that MSL has circulated a lengthy press release describing what he said. Though it is in the form of a press release, the document is in reality a brief essay about the reason for the high price of gas. I am therefore taking the unusual step of printing the press release below on this blog.*

*This posting represents the personal views of Lawrence R. Velvel. If you wish to respond to this email/blog, please email your response to me at velvel@mslaw.edu. Your response may be posted on the blog if you have no objection; please tell me if you do object.



MSLNEWSCONTACT: Kirby F. Smith at (978) 681-0800, x-25 (voice); (978) 681-6330 (fax); smith@mslaw.edu (e-mail); www.mslaw.edu (Website)

ENERGY DIRECTOR OF “PUBLIC CITIZEN” SAYS THAT THE HIGH AND FLUCTUATING PRICE OF GASOLINE HAS LITTLE RELATIONSHIP TO COSTS OF DRILLING OR REFINING. INSTEAD IT IS BASED ON THE SPECULATIVE FUTURES MARKET FOR CRUDE OIL.

ANDOVER, MA --- The energy director of Public Citizen, Tyson Slocum, said on Thursday that the high price of gasoline at the pump has little relationship to the costs of drilling for or refining crude oil. Instead the high cost and amazing fluctuations in the price of gasoline are due to the cost of a barrel of crude oil being artificially driven up by extensive speculation in oil futures. This speculation is engaged in by wealthy financial institutions such as hedge funds, investment banks, and commercial banks. They hope to make a financial killing by trading in the oil futures market, said Slocum.

Slocum’s remarks were made both at a luncheon with faculty of the Massachusetts School of Law (MSL), and afterwards at the taping of a one hour MSL television program on the high price of gasoline. The program will be shown in New England on Comcast’s Channel CN8 at 11 a.m., on Sunday, April 30, and on the same channel in the Middle Atlantic States on Sunday, May 7, at 9 a.m.

“I urge all citizens, including government officials and print and electronic reporters, editors, and producers, who want to know why their gasoline costs are so high, to watch this program,” said Lawrence R. Velvel, dean of MSL, who interviewed Slocum. “It provides the clearest and most concise explanation of how gasoline prices are set, that one is likely to read, hear, or see.” As often occurs analogously in the stock market in regard to the price of company shares, the price of oil futures has no relationship to the underlying costs of drilling for crude oil, said Slocum. The price of oil futures is based instead on speculators’ assessments of what the price of gasoline may later be regardless of the costs of drilling and refining crude oil. The speculators’ assessments vary from day to day. Thus the market price for a barrel of crude oil on the futures market varies from day to day, and therefore so does the price paid by consumers at the gas pump.

Crude oil producers -- the companies that pump crude oil out of the ground -- do not use their costs of drilling as the basis of what they charge per barrel of oil, said Slocum. Rather, they use the price established in the futures market, which is much higher. In the case of Exxon/Mobil, said Slocum, its cost for getting crude oil out of the ground is about 20 dollars per barrel. But for that crude oil it charges not the amount needed to make only a reasonable profit on the cost of drilling, but the amount set in the fluctuating futures market, which is now over 70 dollars per barrel. By charging the fluctuating futures market price, Exxon/Mobil has been able to make a 46 percent return on investment on its U.S. drilling operations, said Slocum. It has also, he said, been able to make a 59 percent return on investment on its subsequent U.S. refinery operations, he said. Slocum also makes clear that the high return on investment in refinery operations was due to the operations of a gasoline futures market which operates in the same way as the crude oil futures market.

The spot market price for crude oil does not bring down the futures market price for oil, said Slocum, because the spot market price demanded by sellers reflects the futures market price. There are two reasons for this, Slocum said. One is that spot market sellers are able to make a bigger profit by charging an amount close to or equal to the futures market price. The other is that spot market sellers fear that, if they were to undercut the futures market price, large vertically integrated oil companies would punish them for this price cutting by, for example, undercutting the spot sellers’ price in order to destroy the spot sellers’ profits and perhaps drive them out of business.

The essence of Slocum’s comments, then, is that the high and fluctuating price of gasoline paid by consumers at the pump is not due to the costs of drilling for (i.e., producing) and refining crude oil, but is divorced from those costs. Rather than reflecting costs, it reflects the wholly speculative price established on the futures market by speculators -- usually large financial institutions -- who drive the futures price upwards in their quest to make a financial killing.
In a statement of another fact that Americans rarely hear, Slocum said that the actions of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, the world’s fifth largest producer of crude oil, demonstrate that there is a vast discrepancy between the costs per barrel of drilling crude oil and the price of crude oil that is established in the futures market. Chavez, said Slocum, sells crude oil to other South American countries at prices far below the price established on the futures market. Chavez does this to curry political favor with other South American countries, said Slocum, some of which might otherwise be more disposed to favor George Bush in the ongoing, vigorous dispute between Bush and Chavez. By selling crude oil to other South American countries at bargain prices to win their favor, said Slocum, Chavez uses a lower price for crude in the same way that the United States has used foreign aid.

Interviewed later about Slocum’s comments, Velvel said “If he is right in saying that the actual costs of drilling and refining are far below the high price of gasoline at the pump and are not the reason for its high price, if he is right in saying that it is speculative trading by wealthy financial and other institutions on the organized futures markets that is responsible for the high price, then it seems self evident that the way to curb the high price of gasoline is to outlaw organized trading in oil and gas futures. It would seem obvious that, if the organized futures market is in fact responsible for the high price of gas, then getting rid of that market is the necessary step to curbing that price. At the minimum, this is a step which must be discussed.”

“Outlawing the futures market,” added Velvel, “would be vigorously opposed by the wealthy interests that may be making up to billions of dollars by speculating in the market -- by hedge funds, investment banks, commercial banks and others. But it has to be remembered that, because the organized futures market did not even exist until the mid 1980s, this country got along very well without it for the first 80 years of the automobile age. It is therefore obvious that the organized futures market is not essential, and, if Slocum is right, is instead the cause of terrible economic hardship for scores of millions of ordinary people and is a major drag on our economic activity because oil is so important in so many ways throughout the economy. At minimum this should be a subject of inquiry and debate.”

Advance copies of the MSL television program on which Slocum made his comments can be obtained by contacting Kirby F. Smith at the Massachusetts School of Law, (978) 681-0800, smith@mslaw.edu. Videotapes of the luncheon at which Slocum spoke are also available. Tyson Slocum can be contacted at (202) 588-1000.

THE LONG TERM VIEW--Vol. 6, Number 4--Spring 2006

THE LONG TERM VIEW

Are Our Highest Officials Guilty of Torture?

Table of Contents

Introduction Lawrence R. Velvel 3
Torture, Democracy, and the War on Terrorism J. Peter Pham 6
Do Americans Care About Torture? Mitch Wertlieb 18
The Absolute Prohibition of Torture and Ill-Treatment David Weissbrodt 22
A Campaign to Impeach President George W. Bush Francis A. Boyle 43
The Pain Beyond Law Alex Hooke 46
Tortured Logic: Renditions to Justice, Extraordinary Margaret L. Satterthwaite
Rendition, and Human Rights Law & Angelina Fisher 52
The Logic of Torture—Impunity, Democracy, and the Marc Sapir 72
State Power
The Practice of Rendition in the War on Terror Jeffrey F. Addicott 77
America is Guilty of Torture George Phillies 84


THE LONG TERM VIEW

Volume 6, Number 4 Spring 2006

Are Our Highest Officials Guilty of Torture?

Introduction

Lawrence R. Velvel page 3

The use of torture by Americans, the subject of this issue, is a topic in which I have had an interest, and on which I have been posting blogs, for nearly two years, i.e., since close to the time when the first information about torture became public. Unlike typical blogs, the postings have been standard essays, sometimes fairly lengthy ones, of the kind that normally appear not on blogs, but in hard copy. Lots of things that were said in the postings are also said below by writers in this issue of The Long Term View. One cannot, however, begin to explicate in this Introduction all the things that have been said, often quite extensively, either in the blogs, in articles in this issue, or in both.

Those interested in what the writers in this issue have to say will of course read their articles below. Those who may be interested in reading what was said in the blogs in 2004-2005 can read the postings online at VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com, or can now read them in book form because the blogs from 2004-2005 have been published in a book, with postings related to torture forming one separate section of the work and being set forth in chronological order in that section. The book is Blogs From The Liberal Standpoint: 2004-2005, pp. 43-186, and is
available from both Amazon.com and the Massachusetts School of Law. The chronological
organization of the work allows the reader to see what became known about torture at approximately what times, to see what was admitted by government at what times (in general, precious little was admitted), and to get a sense of the flow of information and ideas over time. In this vein, the blogs also tell when it became known beyond dispute that certain ideas the author initially treated as possibilities were in fact true, e.g., that what was done at Abu Ghraib had been done at Guantánamo, that the government descended to torture because it was desperate to try to get information to ward off possible attacks in America and on our soldiers in Iraq, that disgraceful, incompetent legal memos written by right wing zealots in the Department of Justice had been drafted to give attempted legal cover to Bush and company, that the
government wanted to try detainees before military tribunals because it knew it had obtained evidence by means that would cause the evidence to be thrown out in civilian courts, that The New York Times might have been holding back important stories, as became known with certainty when it ran the story about the NSA's spying on civilians with the acknowledgment that it had been sitting on it for a year, and a number of other matters.

In addition to the foregoing, there are numerous other matters written of in the blogs, (and often written of below too). Among other matters, the blogs discuss the
following:

  • There is no question but that George W. Bush, and several of his colleagues like Cheney, Addington, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Cambone, are guilty of the federal crime of conspiracy to commit torture, a crime that is a felony punishable by up to life imprisonment under the federal Anti-Torture Statute and that is an impeachable offense.
  • The media and politicians have been loathe to discuss that Bush is guilty of the felony of conspiracy to commit torture. Shockingly, even liberal bloggers have stayed away from the subject. It is, apparently, just too hot to handle.

  • For two reasons the memoranda written by the Department of Justice to try to legalize the torture made it impossible for there ever to be torture. To begin with, the DOJ took the position that, regardless of the pain actually inflicted, torture cannot exist unless its objective is to inflict pain, rather than pain merely being the byproduct of some other objective. But the objective of torture is to get information, not to inflict pain. Pain is only the byproduct of this other objective,
    and therefore there is no torture.

  • Secondly, the DOJ's memos took the position that, if the President, as commander-in-chief, orders or authorizes torture, then it is not a violation of law to torture someone notwithstanding the federal Anti-Torture Statute. What this meant, as was driven home in spades when the story about the President's authorization of spying on civilians by the NSA became public, is that the President can authorize and immunize violations of laws enacted by Congress.

  • As again driven home subsequently by the NSA spying, the claims of presidential
    power undergirding the torture were and are a threat to the civil liberties of all Americans. For if the President can authorize violations of law if he claims this is necessary to protect the country, if he can authorize torture and electronic spying because he says they are necessary to protect the country, then why can't he, for the same reason, order break-ins as Nixon did, authorize the holding of people indefinitely as Bush did, authorize, or at least countenance, murder, as it seems very likely some presidents have done and as Bush surely has in certain ways. No one will be safe from a president who acts badly—which seems to be almost the only kind of president we have gotten since 1960.

  • The DOJ lawyers who wrote the corrupt legal memos giving attempted cover to Bush's actions have been rewarded by federal judgeships, cabinet positions, and high falutin' professorships.

  • Today, members of the media who call George W. Bush incompetent are virtually a drug on the market. But for a very long time almost no members of the media were willing to speak this obvious truth. And of the very few who were, the majority were African American. It says something very undesirable about this country when the very few people who are willing to speak an obvious truth are mainly people whose ancestors were slaves, and persons who come from the long dominant groups eschew speaking the truth.

  • The man ultimately responsible for the torture had a unique preparation and persona for the presidency: he is a former drunk, was a serial failure in business who had to repeatedly be bailed out by daddy's friends and wanna-be-friends, was unable to speak articulately despite the finest education(s) that money and influence can buy, has a dislike of reading, so that 100-page memos have to be boiled down to one page for him, is heedless of facts and evidence, and appears not even to know the meaning of truth. This is a unique preparation for a President and, except for not knowing the truth, is a unique persona for one.

  • It is essential that we begin putting leaders who commit crimes (including torture) into the dock. The failure to do so, combined with the fact that it is not their children but other people's children who fight their (sometimes criminal) wars, has led to wars and, via wars, to torture itself. Putting leaders in the dock is the only way to deter future leaders from committing crimes. This was our theory at Nuremberg. It was our theory about trying Milosevic. Why should it be different for criminals like Johnson, Rush, McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, Nixon, Kissinger, Bush II, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Addington, and others? Indeed, the very length of the list shows the necessity of trying and punishing these people if we want others to be deterred from similar conduct in the future.

There are many other points made in the blogs and/or made below in this issue of LTV. For we do not live in untroubled times, but in days afflicted by the Chinese curse: may you live in interesting times. I recommend the entire plethora of points to the reader.

Monday, April 24, 2006

Re: We Need People Of Proven Competence On The Private Side In Politics

April 24, 2006

Re: We Need People Of Proven Competence On The Private Side In Politics.

From: Dean Lawrence R. Velvel VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com

Dear Colleagues:

It is this writer’s thought, and I believe the facts support, that today the vast majority of our politicians are professional politicians. That is to say, most of them have spent all or nearly all of their adult lives in politics. Relatively few of them have had decently long careers in the private sector. Still fewer have had what could be called truly significant careers in the private sector -- the kind of career that, for example, Jon Corzine had, or Tom Coburn (to choose both a liberal and an arch conservative). Some have been government prosecutors (usually state rather than federal government prosecutors, one imagines -- i.e., have been a state’s attorney as opposed to a U.S. attorney, one imagines). But even if it is harsh to say so, I don’t think that really counts. For being a state’s attorney is, and even being a U.S. attorney often is, a highly political job. It is not like being on the private side.

It may be perverse to say so, but one can’t help wondering whether the fact that so few politicians have significant experience on the private side, and even fewer have been major successes there, is part of the problem with today’s politicians. If it is, one equally wonders whether it ought to be one of the factors addressed by the new third party which this blogger believes is the only way this country is likely to overcome the political problems plaguing it.

Politicians who have had no private careers, still less significant ones, have nothing to fall back on if they lose office. The best they usually can hope for, perhaps the only thing they can hope for, is to become highly paid lobbyists -- for a federal politician, this means to become one of the K Street crowd. But politicians don’t want to lose elections regardless of the possibility of becoming another of the locusts of K Street or its state-level equivalents. Those who have had no significant private careers, and have nothing to fall back on, are therefore desperate to stay in office. This must be one of the reasons they are so willing to lie, cheat and steal, so to speak, to remain in office. That is, this must be one of the reasons they talk out of both sides or all four sides of their mouths, why they are dishonest, why they lust after the legalized bribes called campaign contributions, why they do the bidding of the wealthy while screwing over the common man, why they are too cowardly to stand up to evil. When you have nothing to fall back on, after all, your choices are more circumscribed than those of someone who can say, “To hell with you. I’ll go back to a satisfying job delivering babies.” Or “I’ll open my own investment bank.” Or, as once (and for decades) was true of major figures in the Executive, “I will go back to being a senior partner in a Wall Street or La Salle Street law firm,” or sometimes even a downtown Washington law firm.

There is another factor involved, too. People on the private side, and even the more so among those who are major successes there, of necessity have the ethos of getting the job done, the ethos of accomplishment. This is worlds apart from the political ethos, which is to talk, talk, talk, not to get the job done, to talk, talk, talk rather than to accomplish great things, to try to offend nobody, or at least as few as possible, rather than to take well thought out positions. The ethos of getting the job done seems to be sadly lacking among professional politicians, who talk, talk, talk and do so in a way that they hope will advance their wish that everyone will like them, or at least that nobody will dislike them.

If I am right in thinking that people with long, significant careers on the private side, those who have been major successes there (unlike George Bush, who was a major failure there), would bring to politics some characteristics that are sorely needed there, then this is plainly something that a new third party should be cognizant of. This is the more true because it is unrealistic to expect the professional pols of our two current parties to encourage their own replacement by a different breed of cat -- even if the new breed of cat is in some respects a throwback to the successful private side types who were so prominent, indeed preeminent, among the founding fathers whose veneration is an American civic religion (albeit one honored in the breach).

But the idea that more of our politicians -- perhaps even most of them -- should be persons with records of success on the private side does raise certain questions and does give rise to certain criticisms. To begin with there is the question of whether successful people will leave their careers to run for and hold office, and will do so despite the savage, often irresponsible nature of the present day media. My personal suspicion is that, despite the good for nothing elements of the media, in a climate which is welcoming apart from such elements, the answer would be yes for a lot of persons. Not all, but a lot. There used to be a tradition of public service in this country that was illustrated by major private side figures like Root, Stimson, Acheson, Forrestal, Stevenson, Richardson, Dillon and Vance. One suspects that a lot of successful private side people today, too, would be interested in service if we encouraged them to it and respected them for it, and if they felt that they would not be called upon to abase oneself as current politicians do. Nor would they have to serve “time without end.” Four years, six years, eight years would be sufficient from the standpoint of the public interest. If they do not fall into the trap of Potomac fever, and do not fall in love with the ego gratifying perquisites of public office (to which they should be less susceptible than professional pols because they, unlike the pols, get similar gratification on the private side), then four or six or eight years might be sufficient from the individual’s standpoint in many or most cases as well as from the standpoint of the public interest.

It is also said that individuals who are successful on the private side expect their orders to be followed without question. They are unprepared for the extensive discussion and compromises of public life, it is claimed. If this is true, it is to some extent desirable, not undesirable. For it reflects the ethos of getting things done, which is exactly the ethos needed in public life. But beyond this, the universal accuracy of the criticism is subject to serious question. Lots of private endeavors involve compromise. (If you wish to test the truth of this, try being a private lawyer in a large multi-party, multi-multi-lawyer trial.) As well, the famous figures of bygone years from the private side who were also major governmental servants, illustrate that people from the private side can indulge the necessary give and take, can make the needed compromises. We are, after all, discussing the need for people who have shown they can be successful, not private side hacks like George Bush or, for that matter, Rumsfeld or Cheney, who were nothing but professional pols chosen to head private companies strictly because of their political connectedness and who, especially Cheney, did not necessarily do such a hot job on the private side.

Then there are a couple of possibly twinned criticisms. To seek candidates who are proven successes on the private side may be criticized as elitist and as too likely to unearth many more conservatives than liberals. Well, if it is elitist, so be it. We need competence, and if it is elitist to seek those who have demonstrated it, then call me elitist. Not to mention that competence comes from a host of walks of life, has no racial, religious or gender limits, and will be shown by lots of people who have worked themselves up from nothing. And plenty of people who are competent will be liberals, especially perhaps those who have had to work themselves up from nothing. Competence, after all, is not the exclusive preserve of the conservative. (Nor is incompetence, notwithstanding Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of that inept crowd.)

There is also the fact that proven competence on the private side will not necessarily translate into competence in political matters. Bill Frist perhaps exemplifies. But this does not alter the fact that, given the pass to which we have been brought by our host of professional pols of demonstrated incompetence, it would be wise to try people who in other endeavors have demonstrated competence. Remember, after all, Root, Stimson, Acheson and the others named above.

And, finally, there is the question of whether one considers certain types of jobs to be private side jobs, or equivalent to them even if the jobs are technically governmental ones. One thinks of two professions in particular, academics at state universities and the military. With regard to universities, my own view is that it makes no difference whether they are state or private. They are highly political entities with the same kind of non-accomplishment-oriented talk, talk, talk ethos as government itself. Yet there are those whose success in higher education bespeaks an attitude of getting the job done and bespeaks competence. So, in this writer’s view, it really depends on the person rather than on the fact that one comes from higher (or previous) education. As to the military, one admits to being a little leery because the military of today is so often a highly political institution where, despite often very high levels of innate ability, people have nevertheless adopted and in their pores absorbed don’t-rock-the-boat, CYA attitudes that are too much like those of professional pols. In this regard, one’s view is not wholly unaffected by the fact that too many generals went along with the disasters of Viet Nam and Iraq, and that, despite his reputation for alleged candor and forthrightness, John McCain, a military hero, not only got himself involved in the Charles Keating affair, but of late seems to have become no better than any other pol in kowtowing to the worst elements in pursuit of his desire to be President. Nor is one’s view wholly unaffected by the fact that Colin Powell, in service of their desire to invade Iraq, capitulated to and lied for his deeply incompetent masters, the three stooges, aka George, Dick and Don.*



*This posting represents the personal views of Lawrence R. Velvel. If you wish to respond to this email/blog, please email your response to me at velvel@mslaw.edu. Your response may be posted on the blog if you have no objection; please tell me if you do object.

Friday, April 21, 2006

Subject: From Howard Gardner

----- Original Message -----


From: "hgasst"
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 11:37 AM
Subject: From Howard Gardner


> April 21, 2006
>
> To Dean Lawrence Velvel
>>From Howard Gardner
>
> [ mailto:velvel@mslaw.edu ]velvel@mslaw.edu

>
Hi and thanks for your recent message. My recollection of the modest
origins of the Swedish welfare state comes from conversations with Sissela Bok, daughter of Gunnar and Alma Myrdal. I am scheduled to see her in a few weeks and will ask her about sources then.
>
I have reviewed my April 14 note, made minimal changes, and am forwarding a post-able version to you. I'm flattered to think that others might find our exchanges of interest. I do appreciate your checking with me, because I would not want to feel that our candid exchanges (e.g. re Summers) would need to be muted because of the possibility of reaching a wider audience.

With best wishes.
>
Encl. Revised version of April 14 notes
>
>
> Howard Gardner
> Hobbs Professor of Education and Cognition
> Harvard Graduate School of Education
> 14 Appian Way
> Larsen Hall 201
> Cambridge, MA 02138

l. I agree that it will be much more difficult to introduce (or, to reintroduce, let’s not forget Aristotle) ethical and good work considerations into politics than into other spheres. In our GoodWork Project, we have looked at nine different professional spheres. The only one where I remained skeptical about the value of the interviews was in the area of business—I felt that the CEOs whom we interviewed were so slick that I did not find many of them credible. I would not say the same about the bulk of the physicians, journalists, educators, etc in our study.

We’ve been encouraged to expand our study to include athletics, the media, and politics. I have hesitated in all three spheres, because of my skepticism about candor on the part of participants—a necessary component of our studies. I note, with some embarrassment, that these are three of the most powerful areas in our society, and three about which my own knowledge is meager and my intuitions are inadequate. Note that Arnold Schwarzenegger belongs to all three spheres, which probably accounts for his prominence.

2. As you probably remember, I started out as a supporter of President Summers, but eventually became a critic, including (to my considerable discomfort) a public one. I have an analysis of his tenure, in terms of the framework developed by the GoodWork project. Summers came in, declaring that Harvard was misaligned, and that he was going to align it better. (No doubt he received this impression from the Corporation and did not hesitate to amplify it himself; as he stated publicly, innumerable times, Harvard had not changed since the time of Charles William Eliot (sic) a century ago). In fact, Harvard has been pretty well aligned for a long time, for better and worse. In the process of his chosen mission, Summers introduced so much genuine mis-alignment that in the end, he had to be eased out. Dean Harry Lewis’ analysis, both in the CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION and in his forthcoming book, EXCELLENCE WITHOUT SOUL seems on the mark to me.

3. On trustees: I agree that it is an error to romanticize the trustees. They came from a narrow gamut of society and were, in various ways, parochial and prejudiced. Of course, I can’t defend their position on college admissions—neither I nor many of my closest friends would have been admitted to Harvard College in 1961, were it not for the beginnings of the thaw. Still there was a certain ‘disinterest’ and ‘concern for the public good’ with which the best of the ‘wise men’ were identified, and its loss is a detriment for all. To Karabell’s painstaking and painful study, we must add Kabaservice’s convincing portrait of The Guardians, who in admirable fashion elected to weaken their own class hegemony and to open up the ranks to you, me, and our compatriots.

In Alan Wolfe’s forthcoming book on democracy, he talks about the importance for democracy of ‘disinterestedness’ and I agree with him. If no one thinks beyond his/her selfish interests, one can’t have a viable society. A colleague whom you may know, Russell Pearce at Fordham Law, argues that the big change in law in the past fifty years has been the steady diminution of concern with the public sphere and the public good.

And so, I am speaking more and more about ‘trustworthiness’—who earns trust, and how can that be affirmed, lost, regained.

4. You may well be right that Progressivism occurred on the heels of the work of Grangers, William Jenninigs Bryan, etc. It is odd how the middle West Plains State are at the heart of what is best and worst about our society (see Thomas Frank on What’s the Matter with Kansas? Or the issues that led to the Civil War) In Scandinavia, poor and freezing 100 years ago, barely literate farmers met at night to talk about politics, to read and debate Rousseau, Marx, Saint-Simon, etc., and from these modest beginnings the modern welfare state emerged—as I understand it.

Subject: From Howard Gardner

----- Original Message -----

From: "hgasst"
To: "Dean Lawrence R. Velvel"
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:51 AM
Subject: From Howard Gardner

> March 16, 2006
>
> To Dean Lawrence Velvel
>>From Howard Gardner
>
> E mail
>
> Many thanks for sending me your collected blogs. I am pleased to have them
> and hope to have a chance to look through them before long. As you may
> know, I have been pretty close to the Summers' situation at Harvard and
> you were certainly on to some of the problems well before other observers.
> Regardless of where various faculty members stood on the matter, most of
> us are relieved that this particular Larry is moving on and that Derek Bok
> will be the interim president. I hope that Harvard will not provide
> material for you in the near future-there are more than enough serious
> problems in the wider world to keep us all very busy.
>
> With best wishes.
>
>
> Howard Gardner
> Hobbs Professor of Education and Cognition
> Harvard Graduate School of Education
> 14 Appian Way
> Larsen Hall 201
> Cambridge, MA 02138

Re: From Howard Gardner

----- Original Message -----

From: "Dean Lawrence R. Velvel"
To: "hgasst"
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: From Howard Gardner

March 17, 2006

Dear Howard:

Thanks much for the email.

You know, because I have (unfortunately?) been in large law firms and relatively high level Department of Justice offices, I have seen lots of guys like Larry Summers. Those firms and offices are filled with them. So it was no real trick to spot the fact that, if I may put it bluntly, the guy's underlying problem is that he is a jerk. Since his resignation, pundits have been trying to base all kinds of theoretical and abstract propositions on the relevant events. It has been said that they illustrate a faculty out of control, that they are the product of a widening gap in prestige and resources between sciences and other disciplines, that they show it is no longer possible for a university to make strides. This is all bushwa if you ask me. The fundamental problem, it seems to me, is simply that Summers is a jerk who stridently mouthed off in various dumb ways and, in doing so, caused people to intensely dislike him.

If you are still close to the situation at Harvard, there is one point that I would pass on for whatever it is worth. (Nothing, perhaps?) As you know, the failure of Summers and Kagan to punish people in the law school who richly deserve punishment for academic sin was one of the things I questioned. And, of course, it turns out that, totally unknown to me before Summers resigned, his failure to impose any punishment on his buddy Shleifer was one of the things the faculty was unhappy about. Now, however, Kagan's name has surfaced as a possibility for the presidency, perhaps a distinct possibility. But she too was involved in the failure to punish law professors who committed academic sin and, beyond this, as I wrote in a recent blog, when she was a student she was a participant, apparently a reasonably major one, in one of the two law professors' misconduct. In my view, it would be pretty awful if Harvard replaced one president who countenanced academic sin with another one who both countenanced and participated in it.

This, of course, is just my personal view. But one cannot help wondering if this, like so many things, might prove to be one of those time bombs that lie around for a long time, only to explode in people's faces years later for reasons that cannot even be guessed at right now. And of course Harvard can find a first rate president, male or female, whose career has been virtuous, has been without academic sin.

Anyway, thanks again for the kind words. I greatly appreciate them.

All best wishes.

Larry Velvel


----- Original Message -----

From: "hgasst"
To: "Dean Lawrence R. Velvel"
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:51 AM
Subject: From Howard Gardner

> March 16, 2006
>
> To Dean Lawrence Velvel
>>From Howard Gardner
>
> E mail
>
> Many thanks for sending me your collected blogs. I am pleased to have them
> and hope to have a chance to look through them before long. As you may
> know, I have been pretty close to the Summers' situation at Harvard and
> you were certainly on to some of the problems well before other observers.
> Regardless of where various faculty members stood on the matter, most of
> us are relieved that this particular Larry is moving on and that Derek Bok
> will be the interim president. I hope that Harvard will not provide
> material for you in the near future-there are more than enough serious
> problems in the wider world to keep us all very busy.
>
> With best wishes.
>
>
> Howard Gardner
> Hobbs Professor of Education and Cognition
> Harvard Graduate School of Education
> 14 Appian Way
> Larsen Hall 201
> Cambridge, MA 02138

Re: From Howard Gardner

----- Original Message -----

From: "hgasst"
To: "Dean Lawrence R. Velvel"
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 2:56 PM

Subject: Re: From Howard Gardner

> Yes, I have worried about this as well. Elena is very well thought of,
> across the university, and perhaps she can rise above the plagiarism
> incidents. Alas, only those of us (and I refer here to myself) who have
> avoided adminstration altogether have any chance of having completely
> clean hands in these affairs. Even my good friend Jim Freedman, who is
> dying at this hour and comes as close to the ideal Univ President as
> anyone I know, did things-- and failed to do things-- as President of
> Dartmouth that he wishes he had not done.
>
> Obviously, this is just between us-- I value the opportunity to 'converse'
> on a background level.
>
> Best wishes, howard

Re: Professor Gardner

----- Original Message -----

From: Dean Lawrence R. Velvel
To: Howard Gardner
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 4:07 PM

April 7, 2006

Professor Howard Gardner

Dear Howard:

Thanks very much for your email. I wanted to respond earlier, but have been completely tied up assisting in the preparation for and attending a trial. Unfortunately, I suppose, I am still a lawyer, even at my rather advanced age. Trial preparation, both before and during a trial, is, as you may imagine, pretty much all-consuming; indeed I write this at 3:30 a.m. Friday morning because there has been no other time.

Anyway, you are the only person thus far who seems to have observed the echo of Lenin’s What Is To Be Done. I could barely restrain myself from using his exact and classic title, but did think this would not be wise in view of the horrible things that happened in Russia because of Lenin, his successor, and his successor’s successors.

I do look forward to reading the piece you sent me (which I at least hope to get to over the weekend), and would gladly read whatever additional information and books that may be available. Please let me know where to get the information and books. I do have a recollection of reading one book that resulted from your project a few years ago -- by perhaps four young women, with an introduction by you, if I remember correctly.

I think I agree with your reading of history, although I might go back a bit before TR’s Presidency to the Grangers, populists and believers in expertise of the late 19th Century. (I recently read a review of a new book about William Jennings Bryan that said he was one of the persons who instilled the relevant ideas into the Democratic Party. Is this true, I wonder?) I also agree that what you call the new dispensation would cut across party lines and red-blue divides. It would also, I think, include many -- millions indeed -- who are turned off from our current political system because of its inadequacy and unfairness, its corruption, and the incompetents whom it places in office.

There are, by the way, some interesting ideas about huge corporations that might be part of the “new dispensation” near the end of Charles Fishman’s recent book on Wal-Mart.

I would also comment that your view regarding the winner-take-all nature of our society is terribly right. It is a problem that has been on my mind for a long time, at least since I read of it a number of years ago in an article by or about -- I don’t remember which - - Robert Frank, the Cornell economist who has dealt with this. This winner-take-all mindset enables some to become filthy rich, while it simultaneously excuses the fact that others are being screwed over beyond, and often contrary to, the necessities of an innovative capitalism and a decent society. By the way, I do indeed recognize, and take no umbrage whatever at, the fact that the two of us would be considered among the “winners” of this (increasingly) economically and socially unbalanced society. In my own case, as my quartet of fictionalized memoirs makes clear, I was long one of its losers, largely because of the ways in which I believe a person must act in order to be a decent, honorable person. The fortunes of life change, however, and so your description would now be applicable to me, I guess.

So . . . . thanks for setting down some of your thoughts. When the current trial is over, I shall write some more about matters relating to a proposed new party that relies heavily on the Internet. (Interestingly, just a few days ago, The Times carried a page one story about our standard politicians also making greatly increased use of the Internet.)

Would you mind, incidentally, if your email (and perhaps this response too) were posted on my personal website and on the site established for the new party?

All the best.

Larry Velvel

Re: From Howard Gardner

----- Original Message -----

From: "Dean Lawrence R. Velvel"
To: "hgasst"
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: From Howard Gardner


April 18, 2006

Dear Howard:

Thanks for the email.

I have some reactions to a few points you made.

1. The overwhelming importance of the media -- which remains the case despite blogs -- makes one wish it were possible to have work done in that field, especially because the media are so largely inadequate. Perhaps people like Tom Rosenstiel and Bill Kovach, who are very familiar with the various pros and cons, could point to others who likewise are deeply concerned. Politics is equally of importance (although, as Lincoln said, the media is even more important, since it will ultimately influence what the pols do). I can appreciate the first-blush hopelessness of finding honest, suitable pols to participate, however. (Even Diogenes might be stumped.)

2. Ever since reading Karabel's book (which I intellectually plundered for a two hour interview on MSL's Sunday morning book show on Comcast), I have been meaning to get Kabaservice's work, which Karabel mentions in several footnotes. Your email reminded me of my desire to read Kabaservice's book -- for which I thank you -- and I immediately put in a request for the book with our librarian.

3. I had no idea what the Scandinavians had done. Is there something I can read on this fascinating subject -- a book, an article, a plural number of either? You know, I come from Chicago, where there were a lot of Scandinavians, and there are those of us who, to this day, feel that when we were growing up the middle west in general, and Chicago (which we especially knew) in particular, were different in crucial ways than what we have lived with in the east for the last four decades. (Ira Berkow, the Times sportswriter, whom I knew a bit in high school, likely would be one of those who feels this way.) One wonders whether we are right and, if so, what role the Scandinavian influence might have played.

4. Despite believing that total disinterestedness is not a possibility, I nonetheless agree that disinterestedness, to the maximum extent one can achieve it, is a crucial factor. To reach maximum disinterestedness, one must, I think, have a high sense of fairness and a real desire for social justice. Our problem today is that, at least since the so-called Reagan revolution, our society has been in the grip of devil-take-the-hindmost, unregenerate, even barbaric capitalism, a capitalism that makes no allowance for the common guy, or the less fortunate person, and applauds the concept of getting every nickel you can even if your workers get precious little. This is a recipe, ultimately, for social -- and economic -- disaster. In the final analysis, Milton Friedman and his school of unregenerate capitalism have done us no favors.

I am very happy that you were willing to let me post your revised initial email and my response, and I would like to post your email of April 14th plus this response. Let me know if this is alright with you. It is an amusing thought that perhaps, if we keep this up, we might have something that in a way is tantamount to the Gary Becker/Richard Posner blog at the University of Chicago. Ours, it is humorous to think, would in a way be the liberal answer to their far more conservative work.

Sincerely,

Larry Velvel

----- Original Message -----

From: "hgasst"
To:
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 1:32 PM
Subject: From Howard Gardner

> April 14 2006
>
> To Dean Lawrence R. Velvel
>>From Howard Gardner
>
> Velvel@mslaw.edu
>
> Hi and many thanks for your communications of April 7 and 11. I must say
> that I marvel at your ability to keep up your blog and your no doubt
> extensive correspondence, in addition to running a law school and
> participating in a trial. I have all that I can do to keep up with my
> teaching, my email, and my family.
>
> Here are some thoughts, spurred by your notes:
>
> l. I agree that it will be much more difficult to introduce (or, to
> reintroduce, let's not forget Aristotle) ethical and good work
> considerations into politics than into other spheres. In our GoodWork
> Project, we have looked at nine different professional spheres. The only
> one where I remained skeptical about the value of the interviews was in
> the area of business-I felt that the CEOs whom we interviewed were so
> slick that I did not find many of them credible. I would not say the same
> about the physicians, journalists, educators, etc in our study.
>
> We've been encouraged to expand our study to include athletics, the media,
> and politics. I have hesitated in all three spheres, because of my
> skepticism about candor on the part of participants-a necessary component
> of our studies. I note, with some embarrassment, that these are three of
> the most powerful areas in our society, and three about which my own
> knowledge is meager and my intuitions are inadequate. Note that Arnold
> Schwarzeneger belongs to all three spheres, which probably accounts for
> his prominence.
>
> 2. As you probably remember, I started out as a supporter of President
> Summers, but eventually became a critic, including (to my discomfort) a
> public one. I have an analysis of his tenure, in terms of the framework
> developed by the GoodWork project. Summers came in, declaring that
> Harvard was misaligned, and that he was going to align it better. (No
> doubt he received this impression from the Corporation and was only to
> happy to amplify it himself; as he stated publicly, innumerable times,
> Harvard had not changed since the time of Charles William Eliot (sic)).
> In fact, Harvard has been pretty well aligned for a long time, for better
> and worse. In the process of his chosen mission, Summers introduced so
> much genuine mis-alignment that in the end, he had to be eased out. Dean
> Harry Lewis' analysis, both in the CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION and in
> his forthcoming book, seems on the mark to me.
>
> 3.On trustees: I agree that it is an error to romanticize the trustees.
> They came from a narrow gamut of society and were, in various ways,
> parochial and prejudiced. Of course, I can't defend their position on
> college admissions-neither I nor many of my closest friends would have
> been admitted to Harvard College in 1961, were it not for the beginnings
> of the thaw. Still there was a certain 'disinterest' and 'concern for the
> public good' with which the best of the 'wise men' were identified, and
> its loss is a detriment for all. To Karabell's painstaking and painful
> study, we must add Kabaservice's convincing portrait of The Guardians, who
> in admirable fashion elected to weaken their own class hegemony and to
> open up the ranks to you, me, and our compatriots.
>
> In Alan Wolfe's forthcoming book on democracy, he talks about the
> importance for democracy of 'disinterestedness' and I agree with him. If
> no one thinks beyond his/her selfish interests, one can't have a viable
> society. A colleague whom you may know, Russell Pearce at Fordham Law,
> argues that the big change in law in the past fifty years has been the
> steady diminution of concern with the public sphere and the public good.
>
> And so, I am speaking more and more about 'trustworthiness'-who earns
> trust, and how can that be affirmed, lost, regained.
>
> 4. You may well be right that Progressivism occurred on the heels of the
> work of Grangers, William Jenninigs Bryan, etc. It is odd how the middle
> West Plains State are at the heart of what is best and worst about our
> society (see Thomas Frank on What's the Matter with Kansas? Or the issues
> that led to the Civil War) In Scandinavia, poor and freezing 100 years
> ago, barely literate farmers met at night to talk about politics, to read
> and debate Rousseau, Marx, Saint-Simon, etc., and from these modest
> beginnings the modern welfare state emerged-as I understand it.
>
> Good to be in touch.
>
> With best wishes.
>
>
> Howard Gardner
> Hobbs Professor of Education and Cognition
> Harvard Graduate School of Education
> 14 Appian Way
> Larsen Hall 201
> Cambridge, MA 02138
>
> Voice: 617-496-4929
> Fax: 617-496-4855
> www.howardgardner.com
> e-mail: howard@pz.harvard.edu

Subject: From Howard Gardner

----- Original Message -----

From: "hgasst"
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 11:37 AM
Subject: From Howard Gardner

> April 21, 2006
>
> To Dean Lawrence Velvel
>>From Howard Gardner
>
> [ mailto:velvel@mslaw.edu ]velvel@mslaw.edu
>
> Hi and thanks for your recent message. My recollection of the modest
> origins of the Swedish welfare state comes from conversations with Sissela
> Bok, daughter of Gunnar and Alma Myrdal. I am scheduled to see her in a
> few weeks and will ask her about sources then.
>
> I have reviewed my April 14 note, made minimal changes, and am forwarding
> a post-able version to you. I'm flattered to think that others might
> find our exchanges of interest. I do appreciate your checking with me,
> because I would not want to feel that our candid exchanges (e.g. re
> Summers) would need to be muted because of the possibility of reaching a
> wider audience.
>
> With best wishes.
>
> Encl. Revised version of April 14 notes


l. I agree that it will be much more difficult to introduce (or, to reintroduce, let’s not forget Aristotle) ethical and good work considerations into politics than into other spheres. In our GoodWork Project, we have looked at nine different professional spheres. The only one where I remained skeptical about the value of the interviews was in the area of business—I felt that the CEOs whom we interviewed were so slick that I did not find many of them credible. I would not say the same about the bulk of the physicians, journalists, educators, etc. in our study.

We’ve been encouraged to expand our study to include athletics, the media, and politics. I have hesitated in all three spheres, because of my skepticism about candor on the part of participants—a necessary component of our studies. I note, with some embarrassment, that these are three of the most powerful areas in our society, and three about which my own knowledge is meager and my intuitions are inadequate. Note that Arnold Schwarzenegger belongs to all three spheres, which probably accounts for his prominence.

2. As you probably remember, I started out as a supporter of President Summers, but eventually became a critic, including (to my considerable discomfort) a public one. I have an analysis of his tenure, in terms of the framework developed by the GoodWork project. Summers came in, declaring that Harvard was misaligned, and that he was going to align it better. (No doubt he received this impression from the Corporation and did not hesitate to amplify it himself; as he stated publicly, innumerable times, Harvard had not changed since the time of Charles William Eliot (sic) a century ago). In fact, Harvard has been pretty well aligned for a long time, for better and worse. In the process of his chosen mission, Summers introduced so much genuine mis-alignment that in the end, he had to be eased out. Dean Harry Lewis’ analysis, both in the CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION and in his forthcoming book, EXCELLENCE WITHOUT SOUL seems on the mark to me.

3.On trustees: I agree that it is an error to romanticize the trustees. They came from a narrow gamut of society and were, in various ways, parochial and prejudiced. Of course, I can’t defend their position on college admissions—neither I nor many of my closest friends would have been admitted to Harvard College in 1961, were it not for the beginnings of the thaw. Still there was a certain ‘disinterest’ and ‘concern for the public good’ with which the best of the ‘wise men’ were identified, and its loss is a detriment for all. To Karabell’s painstaking and painful study, we must add Kabaservice’s convincing portrait of The Guardians, who in admirable fashion elected to weaken their own class hegemony and to open up the ranks to you, me, and our compatriots.

In Alan Wolfe’s forthcoming book on democracy, he talks about the importance for democracy of ‘disinterestedness’ and I agree with him. If no one thinks beyond his/her selfish interests, one can’t have a viable society. A colleague whom you may know, Russell Pearce at Fordham Law, argues that the big change in law in the past fifty years has been the steady diminution of concern with the public sphere and the public good.

And so, I am speaking more and more about ‘trustworthiness’—who earns trust, and how can that be affirmed, lost, regained.

4. You may well be right that Progressivism occurred on the heels of the work of Grangers, William Jenninigs Bryan, etc. It is odd how the middle West Plains State are at the heart of what is best and worst about our society (see Thomas Frank on What’s the Matter with Kansas? Or the issues that led to the Civil War). In Scandinavia, poor and freezing 100 years ago, barely literate farmers met at night to talk about politics, to read and debate Rousseau, Marx, Saint-Simon, etc., and from these modest beginnings the modern welfare state emerged—as I understand it.
>
>
> Howard Gardner
> Hobbs Professor of Education and Cognition
> Harvard Graduate School of Education
> 14 Appian Way
> Larsen Hall 201
> Cambridge, MA 02138
>

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Re: Physical Courage, Moral Courage, And American Generals

April 19, 2006

Re: Physical Courage, Moral Courage, And American Generals.

From: Dean Lawrence R. Velvel VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com

Dear Colleagues:

Men who rise to the top of the American military are usually men who, in the old fashioned phrase, have faced enemy shot and shell. Their physical courage is not to be questioned. Physically, they are braver than the average bear, to use the slang term that was popular awhile ago.

There is, however, another type of courage, moral courage. This, as I understand it, is the courage to do and say what is right, or what you truly believe, even though you will catch several different kinds of hell for doing or saying it.

Moral courage is not something this writer understood in his younger days. For he was raised by semi-socialistic immigrant advocates of social justice, who taught that one should always do and say what is right and the world will respect you for it. So doing and saying what was right was not a matter of courage. It was simply the way one acted and spoke.

After awhile, of course, the first generation American learns that this philosophy is usually just foolishness and self destructive in America. Here, doing and saying what is right does not gain one respect. Instead, it leads to getting smacked upside the head. The smack may be professional, may be social, can sometimes even be physical one guesses. Because of it, there is such a thing as moral courage. Moral courage is the courage to do or say what is right. It is the courage not to silently go along with the crowd.

Moral courage is one of the matters at issue, or at stake, in the recent criticism of Donald Rumsfeld by several generals. As all readers must know, a small number of retired military men have begun speaking out against him. This is contrary to the usual military ethos, to the ethos that generally governs not just those on active duty, but the retired as well. Other retired officers are said to be wrestling with their consciences about whether to speak out. And at least one of those who has spoken out, Gregory Newbold, says he advocated against the Iraq war while still on active duty, though he did so strictly internally, strictly within the government.

Given the prevailing military ethos, to speak out publicly, even when retired, is an act of moral courage. It likewise is an act of moral courage to speak out internally when still on active duty. For this, as all military men know, can be professional suicide -- is likely to be professional suicide. And to speak out publicly while on active duty, well, that is moral courage of the highest degree, as shown by the example of Eric Shinseki – who was right and suffered accordingly.

There is in this country something of a small tradition of occasional moral courage involving the military. Lincoln showed it when he rightly or wrongly kept McClellan, despite enormous pressure to get rid of a man incompetent in battle, because he thought McClellan was the only man then capable of whipping the Army of the Potomac back into shape after Lee had smashed it yet again. Grant showed it when he turned south after the Wilderness and then continually pressed on, despite the horrible casualties, because he knew this was the way to win the Civil War. Billy Mitchell showed moral courage, to the point of destruction of his career. Eisenhower showed moral courage on June 5, 1944, when he gave the command to go the next day. Truman showed it when he fired MacArthur and brought down upon his own head the deluge.

And there have been failures of moral courage in the military as well. This was exemplified when so many Union commanders would not press onwards in the Civil War. It was exemplified á outrance in the Viet Nam war, when commanders would not speak out against the folly of what was being done. Not for nothing is one of the most significant and now famous lapses of moral courage in American military history the story of Harold K. Johnson, Army Chief of Staff from 1964 to 1968. A man of enormous physical valor, Harold Johnson did not agree with Lyndon Johnson’s method of fighting the Viet Namese war. He got in his chauffeured car to drive to the White House and resign in protest. But before getting there he turned around, having convinced himself that his resignation would only mean he would be replaced by someone more pliable -- a version of the ever present excuse that “If I resign, someone worse will take my place.” Johnson later counted his failure to resign that day “‘the greatest moral failure of my life.’”

Of course, moral courage is not the only consideration when the question is whether a top military man should speak out publicly. It is not the only consideration even for those relatively few who have it, and who are willing to risk their reputations and, if they are still on active duty, their careers in order to say what needs to be said. Two other considerations are often mentioned. One is that public silence -- simply going along -- gives the public confidence that the military is non-political. This, however, is bushwa. The military is ninety percent Republican and everyone knows it. Perversely, and though I don’t personally believe it, silence about Iraq could lead people to think the military is political -- to think the high brass is currently remaining silent to protect the Republicans, whom the military overwhelmingly favors, and whose leaders got us into the horrible mess in Iraq.

The question whether the military is political is, in reality, quite a different one than merely whether it speaks out. It is, rather, whether it follows orders regardless of its own views.

The other, perhaps even more important consideration is civilian control of the military. This principle seems to be deeply respected in the military, and is essential to a democracy. It is felt that speaking out against civilian masters jeopardizes the principle. There is a lot to this, at least if people speak out while remaining on active duty. Once they retire, though, there does not seem to be so much to it, especially if it is thought, as it probably should be thought, that one must retire before speaking out against the civilian leadership. In exemplification of moral courage, one should retire and speak publicly if one feels the civilians’ errors are of sufficient magnitude – like invading Iraq with only about 125,000 or 150,000 troops.

There are certain ironies, or paradoxes, or contradictions which attend the questions of a political military and civilian control. One is that, even though the active duty military is not political in the sense of speaking out against civilian superiors, it nonetheless is very political, perhaps dangerously so, in another way. Because of our extensive involvements all over the world -- one has read that we have over 700 foreign bases and installations -- high representatives of the military are in constant contact with other nations, including, of course, other nations’ military establishments. In this continuous contact the military sometimes conducts what can be considered its own independent foreign policy, a policy which may at times be different than that of its civilian masters. If memory serves, Andrew Bacevich thinks that the retired General Zinni, one of Rumsfeld’s (long time) severe critics, was virtually a proconsul when he was the head of Centcom, the command which fights our wars in the Mideast. Admiral William Fallon, the current head of U.S. Pacific Command, is said to be conducting a policy toward China that is far less hostile than the stance of his civilian superiors. Very possibly, Admiral Fallon’s ideas are much wiser than those of Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al. That would not change the fact that they are different.

So, despite the desire to honor them, it would appear that the principle of not being political and the principle of civilian control of the military are both violated in the field of foreign affairs.

The other irony or paradox or contradiction relates to the object of the current outpouring of criticism. Its target has been Rumsfeld. But, as arrogant as he may be, and as personally obnoxious to deal with as he may be, he is not the true culprit here. The true culprits are his superiors, Bush and Cheney. They wanted to get rid of Saddam (as Rumsfeld admittedly did also), but knew that the country would not swallow a huge commitment of half a million men, a commitment too reminiscent of Viet Nam. So it was really they who needed and demanded the too small force for which Rumsfeld is now taking all the heat -- and who told the country to go about its normal business as if nothing were happening. So, if the current military criticism were to truly be accurate, it would, like Harold Johnson’s aborted action, be directed against the President (and Vice President), not against Rumsfeld, or at least not against Rumsfeld alone.

Of course, directing criticism against those who bear the true responsibility, Bush and Cheney, would be an even more serious inroad upon the principle of not appearing political and the principle of civilian control. On the other side, if one truly has the moral courage to speak out, as so few do, one should direct one’s comments at those who truly bear primary responsibility for the disaster that is Iraq, not just at one who bears subordinate responsibility. Still more true is this when the critic is a retired military officer.*

*This posting represents the personal views of Lawrence R. Velvel. If you wish to respond to this email/blog, please email your response to me at velvel@mslaw.edu. Your response may be posted on the blog if you have no objection; please tell me if you do object.

Monday, April 10, 2006

Re: Bush’s Double Standard On Releasing Classified Information

April 8, 2006

Re: Bush’s Double Standard On Releasing Classified Information.

From: Dean Lawrence R. Velvel VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com

Dear Colleagues:

There are a number of subjects, related to the possible third party that is the subject of my last blog, that one wishes to find time to write about. But, for better or worse, and despite age, one is still a lawyer. Accordingly, the last few weeks have been occupied day and night -- literally -- in helping in the preparation for and presentation of a case at trial.

Yet, there is one point -- not directly related to the need for a third party, yet not divorced from it either -- that is of such consequence, and is so fascinating, that one arises to write about it briefly at 3:30 a.m. despite all else that is going on. There has been no time even to learn, much less to research, its ins and outs, which will be left to others to ascertain. But neither has the point yet been mentioned in the media I’ve seen -- one continues to read the newspapers daily despite a trial -- even though it seems to me wholly obvious.

So here goes.

Because of a court filing by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, it has now become public that, according to Scooter Libby, George Bush authorized him in July 1993 to disclose previously highly confidential information -- to leak this information -- in order to help make Bush’s case for war. The information is said to have come from a supersecret 90 page document called a National Intelligence Estimate. The leaked information is a particular part of the Estimate which supported going to war, though one gathers that other parts, that were not released, were contrary in import and did not support going to war. (The existence of opposing imports in the Estimate was discussed here in a posting of July 16, 2004 entitled "A One Page Summary Of A Ninety Page Report?", which ridiculed the preposterousness of politicians reading only, and making decisions based only on, one page summaries of lengthy reports. This posting has been printed at page 197 of the 2006 book called Blogs From The Liberal Standpoint: 2004-2005.)

Because Bush is said to have authorized disclosure of -- leaking of -- a part of the report which supported his decision for war, the claim is being made that it was not unlawful for Libby to have told one (or more?) reporters about the information. The President, it is said, has broad authority to declassify information, and did so here. What is more, it is said that this was opined to Libby by a true creep, Cheney’s right wing wacko lawyer, David Addington, whom Libby regarded as an expert on national security law. And, as a general matter, both now and previously the media, with the exception of a recent editorial in The Times, seems to have automatically accepted the notion that a high level official with power over classification can authorize disclosure on the spot, as it were, of previously classified information: the issue arose a while back, if I remember correctly, when it was thought Cheney might have been the one who authorized disclosure regarding Valerie Plame and Bush’s action was not yet publicly known.

Now, as indicated, the press of a trial has left me no time to research national security law to determine who can authorize disclosure, under what circumstances, and whether the matter is governed by Congressional statute, executive order or both. But there is one point which nonetheless jumps out at me, even though the (incompetent) media has so far been blind to it. Does the governing rule really provide, is it intended to provide, can it truly be lawful for it to provide, that the President can, on the spot, authorize disclosure of previously classified information that supports his position, while withholding disclosure of classified information which opposes it, even information in the very same document or conceivably on the very same page? Is this what classification is really all about? Is this what it is supposed to accomplish or is intended to accomplish? Why am I dubious? Why do I think that, at least as embodied in law as opposed to the evil chicanery that is an every day matter in Washington, this is not the purpose of classification and must be, indeed, a horrible abuse of it? -- in all justice probably a literally criminal abuse of it.

One recognizes, of course, that what Bush did is, as indicated, just another example of the abuses and moral corruption that have become standard among politicians in our country. In this sense Bush’s action is related to the need for a third party because the current two parties have unalterably become moral and ethical cesspools. And one is further aware that the commonness of political abuses in Washington is why media like The Times’ news columns (as opposed to an editorial it wrote) appear to regard Bush’s action as just more business as usual, even if a particularly hypocritical example of same. Yet it nonetheless remains obvious, does it not, that if the kind of chicane being discussed here is the intention or result of the classification system, then that system gives the Executive an awesome power to fool the entire citizenry and Congress, as appears to have been done here by the lies about WMDs. For the Executive will simply reveal, one sidedly, the classified information which supports its desires while keeping secret the classified information that undercuts them, all of which was done here. Congress and the public will know only one side of the facts, will correspondingly lack knowledge of the other side, will be disabled from making knowledgeable decisions, and, incidentally, the first amendment’s purpose of fostering knowledgeable discussion and decisionmaking will largely be thwarted. All of which happened in large degree here with regard to WMDs and going to war. (It has been as well, an unforgettable irony, and an example of the abuse of power and moral corruption which a double standard brings, that George Bush has set the feds to work to investigate and punish leading whistleblowers who have opposed his actions by revealing things he did not want revealed, e.g., the NSA’s secret spying on civilians, while he has himself authorized leaks of secret information that serve his political purposes. When Bush authorizes leaks, his henchmen say, it is in the national interest (even if it involves efforts to mislead Congress and the people into an insupportable war). But when others do it, the henchmen say, it jeopardizes national security (even if it involves whistleblowing on secret spying on American citizens, or whistleblowing on the CIA’s abominable use of secret prisons overseas).

So, while I have not had time to do research on the classification system, it does seem to me that the kind of double standard we are discussing here simply cannot legitimately be the intent of the classification system. The system cannot legitimately have the intent or purpose of allowing the President to authorize disclosure on the spot of classified information which supports his desires, while withholding information contrary to his desires which can be in the same document or even on the same page, and of thereby allowing him far more easily to bend Congress and the people to his will by denying them information about the other side of the issue and denying them the ability to know and knowledgeably debate both sides of the matter.

One wonders: The news media seems not to have realized or discussed any of this. Has the prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald, considered it? If he has, what is his conclusion (which we could find out in due course if there were further indictments or in the course of a trial). If he has considered the matter, has the prosecutor determined that the classification system is intended to permit the kind of gravely abusive double standard being discussed here? Has he determined that the classification system isn’t so intended, or that it isn’t so intended but that leaks are nonetheless so ubiquitous in Washington, are so much a part of the morally corrupt political/journalistic life there, that they should not be punished even though they are crimes? Has he considered the possibility that Bush has committed a criminal act and should be brought to justice for a deliberate legal violation of the classification system? Has he considered this and rejected it? What does Fitzgerald think anyway?*


*This posting represents the personal views of Lawrence R. Velvel. If you wish to respond to this email/blog, please email your response to me at velvel@mslaw.edu. Your response may be posted on the blog if you have no objection; please tell me if you do object.