Wider Circles

I've Changed My Mind

2009-08-31T17:49:00.000-07:00

Some weeks ago I castigated Democrats for sponsoring a pending bill which would prohibit secret ballot elections for workers to unionize. The bill said, roughly, that a majority of workers submitting signed ballots, over an extended period, would be sufficient for the union to be recognized. I felt it was a ploy to intimidate workers to sign up, and the employer had no chance to oppose it.

But now, the bill doesn't seem so bad. What made me re-think this is a story in the NY Times (8/30/09) about the Regis Corporation, a nationwide chain of hair salons, which asked workers at a branch in Montana to sign a document which would nullify any pro-union card they may sign in the future. The head of the company defended it, saying it was "totally voluntary" and was only meant to preserve the choice of secret elections.

Oh, really! And how exactly was it supposed to do this? Wait, I'll answer that. With a collection of these cards, an employer could know who wouldn't sign as well as those who did. The employer could then focus (read target) messages to the former group which would hint, ever so subtly, that their company loyalty was, ahem, less than desired. But just as important, the company would know the identity of workers who signed both the company card and a pro-union card later on. These workers might then be startled to find themselves named by the company in a federal lawsuit to void the union election!

That's a handy little list for any company.

I still prefer the secret ballot, but it's obvious that Regis, and probably many other companies, have no concern for workers' privacy. Otherwise it wouldn't have been so willing to adopt the same coercive measures it was attributing to the unions.

If the secret ballot is lost, so be it. There's nothing that makes me switch sides faster than seeing the side I was supporting come up with an idea that is both devious and stupid!

Riding Dodo

2009-08-12T18:20:00.000-07:00

Isn't it time for a reconsideration of taxi fare cruising in the city? We've made so much progress in urban transportation, why is it we're satisfied with such a wasteful, dirty and inefficient practice? The swarms of yellow roaches clog the streets, especially in Manhattan, but no longer serve the modern lifestyle. We have one of the most cost effective and comprehensive public transportation systems in the world. We are continually adapting the system to the latest innovations, such as computerized subway and bus fare collection and disability access. Yet the taxicab plague never changes.

Defenders, of course, will say that the cabs are adapting too, and point to greater fuel efficiency and safety features. But that only evades the issue. The real waste is in having the beasts roam about the city in packs, belching their fumes without letup, with no passenger inside! It's the equivalent of selling encyclopedias door-to-door. Does anyone remember that?

We need to devise a system to order, reserve and deliver pick-up service that uses the internet and mobile technology. A cab subscription service, for instance, can have a registered user dial a number from a smartphone and enter the destination points for the ride. The car can then be driven to the user's location, drive to the destination and then park until the next call. Or else, if one of the cars is already parked close by, the service can simply tell the user where it is. There should only be very brief periods of non-use in busy commercial areas.

The cars should look like normal vehicles and not be identified as belonging to the service until they are parked, when the driver posts a flag, or something like that, so that the subscriber can find it. Otherwise, when the car is between calls, the driver will be tempted to cruise the car like a regular taxi for a little off-the-books income.

I think that such a subscription service can be profitable. A simple study of the most frequent trips and times of use can reveal the right number of cars and the most accessible stations for them. This, in turn, will determine the monthly charges for the subscribers. And I bet that the city will be glad to set aside many parking spots for the cars because the system will reduce congestion so much.

The zipcar is a laudable attempt to provide an alternative to taxis, but non-drivers can't use it. My system provides full taxi service, but without the negatives. It's time for some enterprising entrepreneur to make the move. The urban taxi is on the way out -- it is a dodo -- and I'd like to hurry that along.

Violence in Film: An Adult View

2009-08-04T18:33:00.000-07:00

I don't do film reviews any more, but sometimes I will write about films as a springboard for views on another subject. I recently saw one of last year's major films, The Dark Knight, and I was impressed. It was a brilliant entertainment, by far the best superhero movie I've seen. While its most exciting achievement was the amazing performance of Heath Ledger as the Joker (tragically, his last), the film worked on other levels as well: as a clever sendup of superhero films in general -- here the criminals punish the citizens of Gotham because Batman is their protector, not in spite of him -- and as a meditation on the deep, tribal need of society for the hero to protect us from our own appetite for evil, which we can never give up, but will never admit.

Director Christopher Nolan did an unusually skillful job. In execution, the film was solid and imaginative; there were no weak elements. Conceptually, however, there was a major one: the character of Batman himself. There is no way I can accept any person who chooses to behave in such a preposterous manner as a mature adult. Dressing up in Halloween costume to shoot it out with one dimensional (if even that) bad guys is a kid's fantasy. But it was never my fantasy, even as a kid. The real bad guys of this world, such as suicidal terrorsts, see themselves as heroes, and the list of grievances they have against society are often -- when seen from their perspective -- a legitimate reason to act. Only not in the ways they have chosen.

For me, a more satisfying film, one that has a genuinely adult perspective on violence, is Steven Spielberg's Munich. We see how an undeniably barbaric act -- the slaughter of the Israeli athletes at the Olympics -- can be the impetus for a secret, extravagantly organized campaign to kill the terrorists responsible for it, and for this to be undertaken as a political necessity. Unlike Batman, the Israeli team seeks out their chosen victims in moments of peaceful relaxation, often with their families, who are innocent, but will be killed anyway.

Also unlike Batman, the leader of the Israeli team experiences a transformation in his attitude towards violence. Sure, Batman suffers emotionally as well, but never from the act of killing. After all, these are bad guys, and they must be stopped. Conveniently, he is always around to kill them just when they are doing their bad guy things again. But the hero of the Spielberg film has poor timing. He is unable to move out of the way of his own humanity, which is, of course, always within him. The revulsion against the act of killing, even of our enemies, is almost a character in the film. By the end, we are meant to see his rejection of violence as a way of life, even when justified, as a kind of heroic act. But maybe not super-heroic.

Crowley Lost Control of the Situation

2009-07-24T10:08:00.000-07:00

Since everybody else is weighing in on this, let me put in mine. Even with facts in dispute, such as when and how many times Crowley was asked his name and badge number, we can agree that this mess could have been avoided. And, without saying that Professor Gates is beyond reproach, it was up to the person who was most in control to do that. The person in control was Sergeant Crowley. Once Crowley was finished doing his job, he should have gotten the hell out of there.

But I don't want to make assumptions about the facts either. The arrest would have been proper if Gates had in any way interfered with Crowley's departure, such as blocking his way. If, for instance, he stood in front of the door until he got an apology. Or else, if he laid his hands on him, or threatened him physically. But the news reports don't even hint that this happened.

It would also have been improper for Gates to interfere with an ongoing police investigation. I give Crowley the benefit of the doubt on this. If he still had questions in his own mind about the alleged break-in, it would be proper for him to stay until they were answered. But again, the news reports seem to say that Crowley had concluded there was no break-in, and that Gates had every right to be there, in his own home.

Should Crowley have then apologized, and then left? The apology question is irrelevant to me, although Gates certainly has a case for one. No, Crowley was wrong because he had passed the point where he had a legitimate professional reason to remain. Whether Gates was overreacting by calling the officer a racist did not give Crowley any reason to engage in an angry debate. Gates was probably getting angrier, and louder, every time Crowley answered him. At that point, it didn't matter who had the best talking (or yelling) points, the situation could only get worse.

And it did. But the arrest -- while improper in itself -- only resulted from Crowley's first mistake of not leaving when he had finished doing his job.

Every Firefighter Is A Supervisor

2009-07-11T13:06:00.000-07:00

I think that any firefighter with a record of competence should get to be a supervisor. Why not? They've already shown the qualities needed for the job.

But wait. You say that taxpayers won't pay for everyone to be promoted? That you only need a certain number to give the orders, but that too many bosses would actually decrease public safety?

That's so obvious that it hurts to even say it. And yet, after the Supreme Court decision which restored promotions earned by white firefighters (and one Hispanic) after New Haven junked the exam because no blacks made the cut, it seems that the decision's critics want just such a system.

They may deny it, but what it will come down to is a system where no verifiable standard of merit will ever be used again. In that case, why not make everyone a supervisor? What could be more diverse than that?

At least, that's what seems to be the position of Lani Guinier and Susan Sturm in their NYTimes Op-Ed piece (7/11/09). They mention the undeniable flaws in the exam, which placed too much importance on national firefighting textbooks and study guides, and not enough on the skills that are actually needed in saving lives and property.

Of course, not being experienced firefighters themselves, they don't specify what these skills are, much less how to test for them. But the thrust of their argument exposes their real intention. They simply do not trust any system where merit can be tested and quantified as a measure of future performance. Read the article, and see if you find a substitute for using written exams in getting the promotional list. I wish they had given a single example.

I'm not defending written and multiple choice exams. You'll find a few outright groaners in any exam you look at. But the implications of their argument is clear: that no test of merit - i.e., a test where performance can be quantified and given a score without consideration of the identity of the testee - can be considered reliable. No written, oral, multiple-choice, physical task or combination thereof. And what do they cite as proof? The simple fact that no member of a particular race reached the promotional level.

But think about it when critics complain that it is the job of the government to expose the hidden bias that prevents us from achieving diversity. Will they accept any objective standard at all? Politicians certainly won't, which was why the New Haven civil service would not certify the exam before they could see the results. Think about that. The public is supposed to trust that their government consists of professionals who have the competence to lead them. Part of that competence is to select those who can provide the best service, and to make sure that those people get to provide it. I don't know what other standard for public service to use.

Scraps

2009-05-31T14:41:00.000-07:00

The "New Car" Scam

I write this a day before GM is expected to file for bankruptcy. This is not a good thing. Our economy will suffer, and unemployment will rise. Lots of finger-pointing and moaning in the media. One likely result being talked about is whether Americans will buy new cars as often as they have. Will the "new economy" support that habit, or kill it.

I say, if it dies, good riddance. It was built on a lie anyway. Somehow, it became a necessary part of "the American Dream" for people to trade in the car they bought just two or three years ago in order to have the thrill of having a fresh one, right off the line. And of course, the used model would be sold to those "second tier" consumers who couldn't afford a new car.

What was really driving this practice? The first owner was probably getting good service out of his car. Why shell out so many bucks for a new one? How much better was it going to be?

Somehow, one of the triumphs of Madison Avenue was that it could get so many "first tier" consumers to believe that continuing to drive their two or three year old car was a diminution of their lifestyle, but get multitudes of other people to think those same cars were a big improvement on theirs.

Username

What's the deal with usernames? I can understand why it's used in social websites like Facebook, but why require it for security purposes? I'm sure we've all had to request the password when going back to a website you haven't been to for a while, but I've also been asked to give my username. That means two annoying functions when only one should be necessary. If a site knows my email address, it should just request the password.

First Couple's Big Night

Oh, what a big story! Our president and his wife came to New York for a Broadway show and dinner out. Media saturation! Look how he keeps his campaign promise to Michelle. A sweet, sweet story.

Today is Sunday. So far, I haven't heard a peep out of the other side. How long do you think that's going to last? You wanna bet tomorrow, the latest, we get a computation - to the penny! - of how much it cost the taxpayers.

You can count on it.

Deadbeat Surcharge

2009-05-21T04:24:00.000-07:00

Surcharge? Of what, you ask. I'll explain later, but first I want to introduce my friend, Mike Sucker. He told me this story and asked what I thought. I've asked him to tell it to you too.

"Hi, my name is Mike Sucker, but my friends call me Suck. About once a month, I like to treat myself to a nice, dry martini. I like a well-appointed bar for this, kinda place with no TV, relaxing music and sleek women to look at. My favorite has a friendly bartender named Stanton."

"So I get my usual the other day and, ahhh, it satisfies. Stanton knows, and he smiles in appreciation. Everything's hunky until I get the bill, and I see an extra two dollars for my libation. I ask Stanton if it's a mistake."

'No, Suck. It's just we've got a surcharge now.'

'Surcharge?'

'You see that guy over at the end of the bar?'

'Him?' I point to a man in a dark suit.

'No, behind him. Guy with the earring.'

'Yeah. What about him?'

'He can't pay today. Means we've got to surcharge the regulars.'

'Me? But I'm always good up front. I never leave with an open tab.

'Exactly. Who better to bleed?'

I register dismay. Stanton shrugs.

'Hey, c'mon, Suck. Our relationship should be worth something, right?'

So I pay up, we fist bump and I leave."

I hope you found Suck's tale as edifying as I did. We've known each other a long time, and he unburdened his dilemma to me. Did I think what Stanton did was right? It didn't seem fair somehow. But he really likes going to that bar. He wanted to know how to express his doubts about the new policy without offending Stanton.

I gave Suck my answer slowly, in measured cadence but in language I need not repeat here. In effect, I told him that I would never go back to that bar again.

What a coincidence, then, that the very next day, I read an article in the N.Y. Times (5/19/09) about how credit card companies intend to deal with the new regulatory environment in the industry. In fact, the new rules became law later this week. An industry spokesman quoted in the article said that it will be a different business in that those who manage their credit well will subsidize those with credit problems. Another commentator, a publisher this time, is quoted as saying that the dependable payment customers - and we know who we are - have been enjoying a "free ride" because we don't pay annual fees and we collect points for new purchases. He said that I - and the others like me - make out "like a bandit."

The article went on to explain that the "deadbeats" in the industry are not the ones whose debts keep piling up every month but, instead, are you and I, and the other 50 million creditworthy cardholders, who don't generate fee revenues because we - for shame! - pay on time.

It seems that "deadbeats" like us will now be surcharged for this. This might take the form of higher base interest rates, shorter grace periods and other "hidden" fees.

They'd better hide them well. I intend from now on to scrutinize my credit bills like they're Nancy Pelosi's subcommittee notes. And if I find a surcharge that is meant to offset the loss of revenue resulting from new government protection for the credit "unworthy" - yes, those whom we used to call "deadbeats" - then I'll find a company without those fees, and if I can't, then I'll pay in cash. I did that last week in a restaurant for the first time in years, and I survived.

And then, I'll take Mike Sucker out for a martini at a nice tavern I know, where they only charge you for your own drinks but still know how to make a decent profit in America.

Bravo Lucas and Dukakis!

2009-05-11T17:40:00.000-07:00

Craig Lucas' The Singing Forest has been lambasted by a number of critics, and for some good reasons. It is overlong, confusing and dramatically unresolved. But with all that, the critics are wrong. This is exciting, original and propulsive theatre. The program notes said that Lucas has been working on the play for nearly a decade. I hope that he won't stop now because it is a potential masterwork.

Just when you thought there was nothing new anyone could say about the Holocaust, Lucas shows us that we haven't been looking in the right places. Describing the plot - which is of breathtaking scope - would be foolhardy, and could never convey the dazzling brilliance of the writing. Suffice to say that the play starts with the interplay of a few minor characters, and eventually leads to the repressed guilt of an old woman, a retired therapist who is a Holocaust survivor, and the secrets behind the birth of her twin son and daughter, from whom she is now estranged. The son, also a therapist, is homosexual and is facing a professional crisis that could lead to the loss of his license. The daughter, a woman who is in an almost constant state of hysteria, has a teenage son who is an emotional cripple, and barely functions. For reasons of dizzying complexity, numerous characters keep stealing each other's identities until the entire cast, most of whom play dual roles, converge on the woman's home in Staten Island, and the horrible secrets of the past are finally exposed.

What keeps us holding on to this "runaway horses" plot is the speed, wit and tantalizing nuance with which Lucas reveals new facets of these characters' lives. The shifts in tone are masterfully orchestrated, but the ultimite effect is of witnessing the implosion of a huge, multi-generational structure of lies collapsing into rubble. The play ends on a note of hope, and possible forgiveness and reconciliation.

Unfortunately, that note is sour, and sounds nothing like a dramatically satisfying conclusion. While it is always wonderful to hear Mahler, playing his music at the final curtain doesn't solve the play's problems. There just may be too many characters screaming at each other in that house in Staten Island, and the subplot involving the son's devious efforts to get another therapist to sleep with one of his patients - and I'm not sure I've got that right - is too convoluted for me. Also, a few of the scenes are too long or even superfluous.

And yet, the dramatic truth of the story emerges in the play's devastating flashback scenes in the last act, in which the theme of redemption is finally stated outright. Taking us to that point would not have been possible without the amazing Olympia Dukakis, who lends a tragic dimension to the old woman. The awful weight of her guilt is always present, even when she is telling lies to a stranger on a sex hotline. The character is required to shift in an instant from feeble exhaustion to vicious sarcasm to roaring vengeance, and she is commanding at every moment. And yet, with all this Freudian melodrama - did I mention that Freud himself has a speaking role? - she still gets all of her laughs on cue.

Some of those laughs are big, too. This is a funny, funny play about ideas that are not. We are never told what we are supposed to feel, and I know that makes some audiences uncomfortable. As for me, that's what I go to the theatre for. I hope to see this imperfect play again - it is closing this week - in a new production, but with Dukakis again in the lead.

A final note: this a time when a number of people are advocating the criminal prosecution of both the defenders and practitioners of torture in the Bush administration. But I don't think anyone makes the case as strongly as this play, which never even mentions the subject. We may argue the political and legal questions, but Craig Lucas reminds us here that the need for justice is basically a human one, and that its pursuit does not stop just because the case is officially closed. Under extreme circumstances, we are all capable of shameful acts. But does exoneration by the rest of the world really stop the process? Somehow our own unresolved guilt will inevitably poison our relationships with those we love, even to the point of ruining their lives. The truth may be ugly, he says, but never forget the costs of burying it.

Suicide By Journalism

2009-04-27T07:29:00.000-07:00

As a devoted reader of the The New York Times, it is sad to read of its recent financial troubles. But when you look at the front page of today's paper, you can understand why it's happening. Somehow, the "Gray Lady" still doesn't get it. In my imagination, I see it being attacked by the Blue Meanies, like the inhabitants of Pepperland. This attack causes it to freeze into a timeless obsolescence. But, unlike the movie, there is no Sergeant Pepper coming to rescue it.

First, the far right column lead is about the doctor shortage. It is a matter of great concern to me, especially since I'm of the age when I will need to see them with ever greater frequency.

It was a good introduction to the problem; well written, nice map and graphic, cogent. Then , suddenly, it was over. Even continued inside the paper, it was barely half a page.

On the far left of the page, the Times gave prime space to our enigmatic Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner. An insert pic shows him speaking, in obvious discomfort (probably to a reporter).

The front page space of both articles was about the same. But inside...wow! The Big T gets two full pages, complete with dramatic poses, in color, one showing him, like Old Sol himself, surrounded by a system of graying white males. Captive to his gravitational pull, they seem to move, clockwise, at his command.

The article bannered him "Overseer of Finance Club". About his "ties" to Wall Street. You know the patter. But it probably has a lot of details none of us ever knew. I bet some of them are embarrassing. Yes, I said "embarrassing".

Anything like news in all that? I wouldn't know. That's because I have absolutely no intention of reading the article.

Period.

The "Fun" Family

2009-04-12T11:20:00.000-07:00

Perhaps I'm coming late to this, but it seems that the predominant source of "fun" in the culture has centered itself in the family experience. I bet this has been the case for some time now, but my own social perspective has been shaped by the culture of the 50's, and that was not the case then. At least not from the male perspective.

Although Playboy came out in the early 50's, the real sexual revolution came after that. The availability of the birth control pill made "casual" or "no strings" sex a genuine lifestyle. This was supposed to be the "fun" part of adulthood (although by then I was already married and the father of two).

But even for the guys who missed it, like me, just being free and able to taste the pleasures of single life was considered the "fun" part before the "responsibilities" of married life took over. I don't remember any of the young men my age who got married who had the expectation that they were just entering the fun part. Being the adult meant that this part was over, and you had the responsibility of having a career and raising your family. Having children was the most important part of that, but I don't think the culture had yet defined it as a "fun" experience.

Part of the culture of the 50's and early 60's was the playboy or "bachelor" icon, like Steve McQueen in The Thomas Crown Affair or James Bond in the 60's. Even earlier, in the 50's, the swinging bachelor, often an older adult like Bob Cummings or Charlie Farrell in My Little Margie, was a familiar TV sitcom character. Having a gorgeous babe, or two or three, was the fantasy of teenage boys or the poor married shlub who toiled for the family paycheck. Being the daddy meant leaving behind any chance of actually living like those icons.

Then, sometime in the late seventies I suppose, the "Family Experience" began to assume a dominant position in the culture and the economy. Perhaps, after the rootless armies of babyboomers actually started raising their own families, it became apparent that the future of marketing to this dominant sector of the economy was to appeal to them in a different way. After all, they suddenly needed to make money for things other than bachelorhood and casual sex. And so, with an almost imperceptible stealth, a new kind of fantasy life was formed. That of the joys, the delights and the life-fulfilling adventure of parenthood. I think that by the time the Steve Martin movie of that title was released, in 1987 I think, the fantasy had already taken over the top spot.

Movies are, as ever, the most reliable litmus of the culture. The endless stream of animated fare with talking animals has conquered the multiplex, and even outgrosses the teenage date movies about stalking maniacs, or the new staple of teenage fantasies, comic book superheroes.

The animation boom fits right in with the other shared family joys: taking the tykes to the restaurant, the family vacations in national parks, the Disney on Broadway, the soccer practice and, of course, the endless recording of every moment in the latest gadget from the mall, much of which will wind up on youtube.

Not to forget the necessity of a cellphone for every family member, who will multiply the family joys by describing their moment-to moment experiences to each other, in detail, even if they will see each other only a half hour later.

It has been that way ever since. Today, the swinging bachelor of the past has been replaced by the misfit daydreamers, like Seth Rogan and his buddies, who perpetuate rituals preserved from high school, more out of habit than pleasure, but who are only waiting for some gorgeous, aggressive babe to drag them, kicking and screaming, into the only true happiness they will ever know, raising a family.

Global Unions

2009-03-18T11:01:00.000-07:00

An interesting proposal was made in the N.Y. Times last week about labor unions extending membership to workers across the globe, and not just within one country. The writer, Jennifer Gordon, a professor at Fordham Law School, believes that workers are migrating at an increasing rate, and that it makes sense to provide membership protection across borders. That way they could more easily move to regions with a shortage of workers, or return to their home countries when the job outlook improved.

Her primary interest, however, seemed to be the greater protection it offered from employers' poor working conditions. Specifically, she felt that if the United States recognized such a union, it would lead to better enforcement of labor laws, since the workers would be more willing to testify against employer-violaters if they didn't fear immediate deportation, which is the situation now.

This is an idea worth exploring, although it presents problems. For instance, Gordon would require that the workers promise to report violating employers or risk deportation if they refuse. But this only trades one power imbalance for its opposite, but equally unfair counterpart. The temptation would be too great for a worker to finger his boss as a way to maintain his residency, especially if the worker had some other reason to fear deportation.

I hope Gordon's idea gets some serious attention. But it got me to think about the current state of the labor movement in this country. Instead of coming up with new approaches, the old guard keeps insisting on the same tired old class warfare. I'm referring to the ban on secret ballots in the Employee Free Choice Act, which was recently introduced in Congress. That could mean that a company's workers could have union recognition if they collected signed "authorization cards" from a majority of employees.

How could anybody in his right mind call this an election? It could mean that union promoters could harass other workers, with no regualtion at all, so that they would have to sign the cards just to stop the harassment. And with no deadline for a vote, any worker could expect to have it continue no matter how many times he refused to sign as a matter of principle.

I don't think that unions need to do this to regain their power. The role of a labor union is changing because the workforce is changing, inevitably, as the world moves at greater speed toward global, or transnational, trade agreements. Technology is making it possible for any worker with a sound basic education to have his or her skills transferred to new industries or to a totally different occupation. Like it or not, companies will have less and less of a need for a workforce of permanent employees, in any particular location, who will be expected to have the same job for an extended career. That means that labor unions will need to organize a more diverse membership than ever before.

At any rate, organized labor will be entering a period of transition, with much excitement and volatility ahead.

Just Asking

2009-02-22T14:00:00.000-08:00

By now, the entire population of at least one planet knows that the New York Post printed a "racist" cartoon last week which, it is charged, likened President Obama to a chimpanzee. The racism hustlers like Al Sharpton have been operating at full boil, and there continue to be demonstrations and calls for the cartoonist and editor to be fired.

I only heard about the cartoon from a TV report on the controversy, which means that I could not see it "fresh" so to speak. But I think I would have taken it literally: this was a satirical jab at the stimulus package by a right wing paper, and it condemned everyone connected with the bill. I would not have seen a racist subtext which pointed to the President. After all, it was Congress that actually "wrote" the bill, or at least wrote more of it than Obama did. You might even say that people who actually read that imaginary message were seeing a "missing link" (sorry).

But truth is irrelevant to this mob. Even Julian Bond, nobody's idea of a showboat, pushed the wacky (and potentially dangerous) suggestion that it was an implied call to assassinate the President.

But something else is missing here, and it relates to why I haven't heard any public figure or anyone in the media mention it at all. The most glaring omission in this entire brouhaha is the President's own reaction to the cartoon. After all, he is the one who is supposed to be offended. Why has'nt he made a public comment? And, much more important, why has nobody asked him what he thinks?

I think I know why. It is because the power groups that feed off of our cultural divisions, including the media, are afraid of what he might say. By now, we are pretty confident that someone as practiced in "togetherness" jargon as Obama would rephrase the conflict into something that would be so bland that nobody would be guilty of anything! And yes, that even includes the New York Post!

A circle of protection has formed around the President. Racism is simply too profitable a product to lose, and public outrage is one of its biggest moneymakers. President Obama threatens "white guilt" peddlers like Sharpton because his soothing academic demeanor is a real buzzkill. Instead, better to let the self-appointed guardians of their race speak for him. You can be sure they never asked his permission.

No TARP for Mortgage Deadbeats

2009-02-18T08:15:00.000-08:00

It's already too late to get indemnity for the TARP debacle, or at least the first part of it. There were no clearly defined rules for the use of the money, and probably billions have gone into the pockets of the very same goof balls who got us into this hole in the first place. So be it.

But now, President Obama is proposing a new influx of taxpayer money to keep people in their homes. Yes, the next bailout goes to homebuyers who face foreclosure because they can't pay their mortgages. This is supposed to be justified by the credit crisis because, it is argued, the banks won't issue new loans and mortgages until the housing market is stabilized.

Not good enough. As a taxpayer, I want attention paid to what I get out of this gift. It wasn't me who signed a loan contract in order to buy a house I couldn't afford. Nobody called me up to ask me to guarantee that mortgage. But now, all taxpayers are supposed to take over part of the mortgage payment so that another goof ball can enjoy the benefits of this crisis.

Obama needs to complete the circle. Provided that the government payments actually do the job instead of going down a big hole because the deadbeat defaults again ( a big IF), how does the taxpayer ever see the money again? Will the U.S. government get an equity share in the house that will be repaid upon the resale? If so -and I think that is likely to be in the law - I still don't think that's enough. I want a rebate on this one. The taxpayer should demand a full refund, including interest, for this bailout money. The President and Congress should remember that the economy is being saved by the very people who did not engage in the behavior that caused the crisis. We are never going to live in those homes. We are too busy paying our own mortgages, our debts AND the taxes that will go to bankers and deadbeats whose selfish, greedy and plain dumb habits have resulted in the most painful economic episode in this country since the Depression.

It's time our elected leaders demonstrated a genuine commitment to the real victims here. After all, we can only recover economic stability, and a sustained growth, if we continue the kind of behavior that is conducive to renewed prosperity. This includes honesty in contracts and a sensible balance between ambition and financial prudence. We should be rewarded for that.

Financial Dinosaurs in Pain

2009-02-11T11:44:00.000-08:00

And why shouldn't they be? How would you feel if a giant glacier was crushing you into amber?

The fact is, these big overleveraged banks are dying because of their own obsolescence. These banks encouraged and exploited an American economy that not only continued to make money, but HUGE amounts of money, even though our population had stopped living within its means long ago. Somehow, financial institutions were able to become even wealthier by selling the idea of American economic strength to their investors, even though our productivity had been falling for years.

But, optimist that I am, I think we're better than that. I think America is on the verge of an economic Renaissance because of the new opportunities available to future-oriented business entrepreneurs. Unless, of course, government intervention prevents us from competing.

Don't get me wrong. I am no free market dreamer who denies the importance of governmental involvement. In fact, the most important reasons for America's economic dominance was because government did subsidize new and developing industries. We've been doing this since even before the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Why stop now?

But the latest plan to bail out the banking industry -- at least a day after Treasury Secretary Geithner's announcement -- looks like a loser. The one thing we know about dinosaurs is that they become extinct. That's what is happening now. The question is whether the American economy can only be saved by saving them.

I don't think so. What amazes me is the absolute certainty -- going back to the creation of the TARP Plan last October -- that the best way to avert a possible depression is to put the dinosaurs like Citigroup (my bank, by the way) into rehab therapy until they can start acting like healthy dinosaurs again.

What I'm getting at is this. This country has thousands of banks that are NOT dinosaurs. They are not leveraged up to their eyeballs in debt, and they continue to make loans to the American people. It's just that they were never capitalized enough to compete with the dinosaurs. Until today, that is. They have lessons for us on sound financial management that has allowed them to survive the coming Ice Age. Why haven't we been hearing from them?

Instead of just pouring taxpayer's money, and our future wealth, into the dying behemoths of the past, let's subsidize the leaner, smarter banks that are surviving. Instead, we've been introduced to huge new programs that totally ignore them.

I think the American people are losing out by ignoring them. I would like to see the Administration design a program that would guarantee the expansion of loan activity for banks that are continuing to make loans and do not need a bailout from the government. Why not get testimony and suggestions from them instead of the braindead CEOs testifying before Barney Frank and the House Retribution Committee?

There's still time to tap into this resource before pouring trillions more taxpayers' dollars into a prehistoric swamp, where it will disappear forever.

David Brooks' Anxiety

2009-01-28T12:48:00.000-08:00

I can always count on the NYTimes columnist to come up with something provactive, and yesterday's piece was no exception. He was worried that American culture is moving toward the kind of "individualism" that reduces the sense of one's obligation to society - in this case its "institutions" - in favor of personal satisfaction. He cited a report from a Harvard faculty committee as evidence of this shift. The report advocated the value of challenging pre-existing "arrangements" from the institutions of society because they stand in the way of one's personal fulfillment.

Brooks feels that the primary commitment towards personal satisfaction, or, in other words, defining yourself by what you ask of life, is inferior to the life defined by what life asks of you. He mentions Hugh Heclo, a political scientist who promotes one's personal commitment to the values of institutions, such as the family, the school or community, as being the true source of America's strength.

Putting aside the question of which of these alleged opposites is better, the more intriguing question is why he thinks institutionalized thinking is losing ground. He mentions a recent decline in faith in society's institutions, not only in this country but worldwide. A cynicism has taken over that rests on the revelation of fraud and corruption by the power elites, and this undermines one's trust in established codes of conduct.

But even if this were true, where is the evidence that Americans are seeking refuge in a more individualistic philosophy? It is just as likely that the various institutions are in upheaval, and that this forebodes a conflict within the power hierarchies. When it's settled, we may find that Americans are continuing to find their identities in group affiliation, but that the institutions have been rearranged. This is a far cry from redefining oneself according to a personal code of values, as in a truly individualistic philosophy. Such movements have been around for decades - such as Ayn Rand's libertarianism, the Beatniks' revolt in the fifties, even the "do your own thing" gurus of the sixties - but they never for a moment challenged the dominance of mainstream American culture.

Finally, I must add that Brooks' use of the Harvard report as evidence of the "new individualism" is risible. The report sounds just like the blather that's come out of faculty committees everywhere for a hundred years. I don't think he can find a single Harvard student who pays any attention to it. The student is too busy hustling his or her Harvard degree for all it's worth in the career marketplace. Getting the best price for it demands institutionalized thinking of an Olympian discipline and dazzling nuance, and I see no signs that America has lost its appetite for its rewards.

Watching TV News is S-O-O-O Last Century

2009-01-04T19:32:00.000-08:00

Tonight I turned on the news, but I turned off the set almost immediately. It was ABC evening news - but that's not important. What's important is that they'd just finished a story about Bill Richardson, who'd been nominated as Commerce Secretary, and the screen only read: "He's out!"

I wanted to know more, but they'd already moved on to the next story. There was a crawl on the bottom of the screen, but it was on yet another story. I turned to CNN, then MSNBC, but they didn't have the Richardson story either. It was frustrating. It seems that six P.M. is standardized time for TV news, and this was the lead story. I would have to keep flipping to other news programs, or else wait for CNN headline news to start the loop again.

But I went a different route, one that was not available before. I went online to CNN and the full story was waiting for me. I learned that Richardson pulled out because there's a federal grand jury investigating his campaign finances. An indictment was possible. No doubt he was pressured to withdraw so as not to taint Obama's new cabinet.

I don't know if I'll ever catch up to the pace of the internet today, but I have learned that the old ways are disappearing fast. I'm a baby boomer. Most internet users today are way ahead of me. They're not dragging the old media, like TV anchored news programs, behind them like iron chains. I'm used to the time when you sat on the couch and watched the news drip, drip, drip out of the anchor's lips. If you missed part of a story, too bad. You'll catch it on the next news show. But you'd probably have forgotten it by then.

This internet generation may never have that experience. You can find the latest news in seconds from any number of sites. No waiting period. The news is already there, and it's waiting for you.

So what's the next step? Will our computers start to think? Will they become frustrated that we're too slow for them? Maybe my next one will haul my body in front of the screen and hold me hostage until it's finished telling me the news.

I think we're headed in that direction.

Goodbye to Suburbia?

2008-12-28T14:57:00.000-08:00

The NY Times today (12/28/08) had an interesting spot about a newlywed couple who found an apartment in Astoria because they prefer not to live in the suburbs. The writer, Joyce Cohen, obviously thinks this is a significant change. Imagine, young people actually choosing the city!

We'll see. I think it's more significant that the family they bought the apartment from was moving because they were expecting their second child. Anyone want to bet where they're going? Do you think the couple who sold the apartment - at less than the price they wanted - is going to be able to afford a larger apartment in the city? I think not.

I wish the newlyweds, the Dubovskys, a happy life here. I'd also love to see their happy, healthy children - who haven't been born yet - enjoying an education at their neighborhood public school. Now that would be real news. After all, New York City has been telling young couples like the Dubovskys to go to hell, um, I mean the suburbs, for the past three decades.

There was once a time when the city administration felt an obligation to keep struggling, working middle class families from moving out of the city. There was a time when there was a commitment to maintain whole neighborhoods where those families could afford to live and to send their children to safe, clean schools where they were actually motivated to learn.

Of course, the Dubovskys sound like they could afford private schools. In these times. however, that level of prosperity is moving further away from the middle class, not closer. Will local government be willing to create initiatives that keep struggling, upwardly mobile families here? It will have to mean fundamental changes in housing and education policy. Policy that boldly recognizes how much the city needs those people to stay in New York.

I am sure those families, maybe even the Dubovskys, will be grateful, and will do their best to reclaim and to preserve the quality of life that this city offers.

Now Mumbai

2008-11-28T07:59:00.000-08:00

1. Naturally, we are chilled by these latest attacks in India, but it's not certain that they forebode any new attacks here. My gut feeling is that terrorism is not likely to disappear, or even decrease, because it is a more effective political tool than open armed revolt. That worked in Castro's time, but as more people in underdeveloped countries choose democracy and free markets, conditions will sufficiently improve so that extremists, whether of religious or political identity, will realize that they can never hope to mobilize the general population to bring down the government. The benefits of freedom will have become too much a part of people's lives.

No, terrorism will be the best weapon for these dangerous fanatics to destabilize the government, perhaps paralyzing it. As the global market heats up, they will feel even more pressure to take violent action. But covertly, and only against the innocent and unarmed.

2. Here in America, we are faced with daunting choices. Recently, a federal judge issued a ruling which permitted a civil lawsuit to proceed to trial. The suit was filed by two Egyptian-born men who were arrested and questioned by federal air marshals because they behaved suspiciously during a cross-country flight. What was their "suspicious" behavior? I haven't read the decision, so I only know of this from a NY Times article (11/25/08), but it seems that it was mostly because they spoke Arabic and were seen changing their seats. They were finally released after four hours.

What are we to make of this? Can innocent people really be arrested just for speaking in their own language? I'll answer that: of course they can, if the "totality of circumstances" are found too similar to the scenario of a terrorist attack, at least as conceived and rehearsed by trained security officers. But if so, how can we claim that the Bill of Rights still exists in the 21st century?

I have no answer for that now. In the meantime, I will read the judge's decison and follow the trial.

Information Obesity

2008-11-15T13:37:00.000-08:00

One of the most anxiety-producing problems in America is obesity. No one disputes that it shortens life, limits our activities and relationships and is getting worse. And, in most cases, it's caused by an uncontrolled appetite.

But America also has another problem due to lack of dietary discipline. This is what I call "information obesity". We are becoming bloated with information that is poured into us 24/7, and we can hardly move because of it.

Is this so bad? Yes, if we just look at its "nutritional value". Like the artery-clogging fats and starch sold in fast food outlets, most information we take in is cheap, useless and has the same flavor as what we ate yesterday. Which is why, of course, we love it so.

One example, a relatively harmless one, is the "Top 10" grossing movies of the week. We are told that last week's Number 1 was "knocked off" by this week's entry. This is true, if you only look at raw numbers, but where is the competition anyway? The new Number 1 wasn't in release last week, so nobody could see it. But last week's Number 1 was seen by millions. Those same people were not going to see that same movie again, were they? Yet we still let the media pretend that this is an actual contest where the two movies are compared for the same thing!

But if we know it's phony, why do we still look at the list? We do it because it's "fun" to compare anything at all even if we know that the comparison is whimsical and statistically meaningless.

I've noticed that some papers have dropped the list altogether, probably because television gets the drop on the print media on the Sunday evening news, so it's already stale by Monday morning. Too bad.

But you can be sure that the statistics machine will be tweaked again for some new popularity contest so that we can be "hooked" again on a regular basis.

We just love those empty calories.

Saving the Economy WITHOUT the Bailout

2008-09-28T08:26:00.000-07:00

It's only called the bailout because our tax money is going directly to the Wall Street screwups who created the crisis. It will definitely save their companies and jobs and, just maybe, the American economy.

But what is the crisis? From what we're told, it's because new money, in the form of mortgages, business loans and credit purchases, is not moving into the economy because the lenders can't get their hands on that money. These operational funds used to come from loans between banks. But now the banks are frightened that they'll never get it back because the lenders are overleveraged and face bankruptcy.

So let's set up an alternate source for these funds. Instead of bailing out Wall Street, put the half a trillion dollars of taxpayer money into a special fund which will only be used for new loans issued by lenders who enroll in the program. The government will charge low, even "survival" interest rates for qualifying lenders. But the economy will have a continuing supply of real money until a new regulatory scheme is created. And we can actually take more than two weeks to think about it!

One important point. The participating lenders should be paid by taxpayer money for issuing these loans. I think that the brokers, management and staff of these companies should be compensated at plain government salary levels but only for the loans that use these funds. That is because some of the lenders may seek bankruptcy protection while in the program, and the program should be insulated from the process.

I think this suggestion is more realistic than having the government issue loans directly, as I hinted at in my post last week. We don't have the time or expertise to set up a new agency so fast. We can use banks and lenders who do this for a living. The difference will be that greed will be banished, and it will be replaced by strict governmental oversight. At least for the duration of the crisis.

Finally, these same lenders who will be participating in the program will get NO IMMUNITY if continuing investigations by the FBI, the SEC and the Justice Department discover fraud. And they will still have to face their creditors and shareholders. Yes, I expect indictments out of this.

This is better than the illusory bailout. The participating lenders should be eager, even grateful to have this chance to redeem themselves --as feeble as it is. But it is an appropriate response to the greed and betrayal of the public that stains this historic event.

The NEW American Dream

2008-09-27T07:17:00.000-07:00

The present financial situation is still precarious. Most likely, Congress will shiver and huddle and decide, after all the posturing, that they don't want to face the music after a new "Great Depression" descends upon us.

So it looks like the taxpayers will be forced to roll up their sleeves for the unavoidable blood transfusion to save a Wall Street on life support. Ah, well.

On reflection, we are going to be working in a new economy, one where this kind of crisis will not happen again. But what will that economy look like? Will it be as compelling as the last one?

I admit that I have no idea what the new economy will look like. I do know that the old one is dead.

That old now dead economy was called the "American Dream" economy. It did a helluva job for this country after World War Two, and that was because most of the country wanted what the economy produced.

We produced "The American Dream". We struggled to get it, and we struggled to keep it. Then we passed it on to our children so they could continue the struggle.

What was it? It was more than just that house in the suburbs with the two car garage. Much more.

The dream was the house, the mortgage that could be paid with one secure salary from the same employer until retirement.

It was not one, not two but a car for everyone in the family. This was because once Dick and Jane hit sixteen, they wouldn't be satisfied with Mom and Dad driving them to school or to parties at the friend's house. And of course, the dream included the car loans that kept all those dealerships in clover.

It was the two week vacations for the whole family -- every year -- to Washington, to New York for the Broadway shows, to Disney World, to Yellowstone.

It was gifts and parties and barbecues and dinners and weddings for all the brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins, cousins and MORE cousins.

It was countless outings to movies, home team games and restaurants every weekend.

The American Dream lasted a long time. How long? It lasted from the time, long, long ago, when people actually spent time balancing their checkbooks (Does anybody still remember such a time?) until today, when you don't know how many credit cards you have.

It included every new gadget that could possibly be stuffed into the closets of the American Dream home, and it included all the extensions of the home to fit more closets to hold these gadgets.

It included four years plus of higher education for every child, but especially for the ones who had no particular interest or intellectual curiosity about anything they would learn in college except how the degree could get them their own American Dream, and if it would be bigger than they one they grew up in.

It included the swimming pools, patios, redesigned kitchens and landscaping that would be classified as "Home Improvement" and which would result in the huge profit everyone expected once they sold their American Dream home. This home became the equity that people expected to grow, as part of their estate, even though their ever more expensive lifestyle was being financed by using that home as still another layer of debt that would eventually be paid by the increased value of that home.

The dream did the job of maintaining this economy because Americans made an unwritten pact with each other to dream it, in unison, at the same time.

The alarm that woke us all from this dream is called the Wall Street bailout.

All functioning economies need a dominant theme to energize its citizens, a "dream" if you will.

America will need another "American Dream" to regain economic stability again. I don't know if it will be as dominant as THE "American Dream", the one that gripped the imaginations and yearnings of everyone who lived here or came here from every corner of the world.

That dream is over.

The "Unthinkable"?

2008-09-21T09:05:00.000-07:00

The trillion dollar Wall Street bailout plan goes to Congress this week and, as an uninformed taxpayer, I have some questions, the foremost being what happens if we don't do it.

Believe me, it's no fun watching the Sunday morning news shows and seeing so many of the big players, all of whom are much, much smarter than me, arguing for the bailout, but not even trying to answer that question.

I'm a free marketer, myself. I believe that poorly designed, sporadically enforced regulation is worse than none at all. I was appalled by the AIG rescue. That's irrelevant now. We're being given a choice between two kinds of socialism, and that's it! This week, we have the spectacle of hundreds of thousands of Wall Streeters creeping on their bellies to Washington and begging for regulation. The first socialist choice is bailing out these institutions in order for the "system" to continue to function. In that case, we will "own" all of these mysterious assets, which we can then sell off to....well, somebody. The architects of the plan say these securities are worth something, but they don't know what. The important thing, however, is to keep the system moving because the consequences are "unthinkable".

I'm sorry, but I want to think about the unthinkable. What if we simply forgot the bailout and moved the government into the same position as these venerable banking institutions. After all, the bailout won't be any good if the system is allowed to continue at the current level of regulation. Public confidence demands an accountability that never existed before. Do we know what these new regulations are? No, not yet. We're told that comes later, after the market "stabilizes". Do we have the new regulating agencies in place yet? No, that's later too.

So what we're told is that "Main Street" Americans need these same institutions in order get get the loans and credit to keep a roof over their heads and their businesses afloat. But why? What is the private financial sector offering that inspires confidence in them at all? After all, they are insolvent now. If they have no real money to offer, what do they have?

I think nothing. The fact is, the regulatory system we need doesn't exist yet. It will come from Congress, and we'd better not try to coast along on the present system without it. That fact leads to a different conclusion.

Let the government -- at least temporarily -- assume the role of direct lender, and demand real collateral for new loans. We can start with the trillion dollars we are NOT using for the bailout. That means a plain direct relationship, debtor to creditor, with no gourmet "derivatives". No bonuses, no CEO parachutes. Just common civil servants providing direct financial assistance to borrowers. After all, the amount of regulatory oversight we'll eventually have, even with the bailout, will have government fingerprints on every transaction. Lots of them.

So what about that "unthinkable"? What will happen to the "Main Street" economy if we don't do the bailout?

I don't know. But I do know that the "experts" have not convinced me the bailout is necessary to prevent disaster. Everything I've heard from them leads me to think the disaster is already here, but it's too important to preserve the current financial system to let it fail.

But face it. IT HAS FAILED!

Without the bailout, debts will be unpaid, many financial institutions will go under, and the cost will be phenomenal.

I say, that's why we have bankruptcy judges. Let the creditors and stockholders line up and salvage what they can.

In the meantime. let the taxpayers use that trillion dollars to keep the economy moving until a legitimate financial system is established, one with pro-active enforcement powers.

"Main Street" will feel pain, to be sure, but not as much as the "immortals" on Wall Street. But isn't that better than what this as yet undrafted "rescue plan" offers us?

The LPGA Debacle

2008-08-28T11:18:00.001-07:00

I must go on record as opposing the, as yet undrafted, policy of requiring its tour players to learn English. Of course, the announcement of the policy was clumsily handled, but it would have caused outrage no matter how the public was told.

It's a classic case where a defensible result is badly served by poor planning. Golf, by itself, is just a sport. But professional golf is also entertainment and marketing. I'm sure all of the players on the tour want to increase the League's profits, and get a larger share for themselves. In fact, reports say that many of the non-English speaking players approve of the policy. They know that their marketability for endorsements can be enhanced by speaking Englsh. Maria Sharapova is a prime example. And, to its credit, the League has been providing what seems to be voluntary language instruction for some time.

But the policy rankles, inevitably, because it imposes a discriminatory barrier to one's appreciation of the sport. It's supposed to be about excellence, not salesmanship. Why should the LPGA even hint that it may not have the best competitors on its tour just because they don't have the highest Q scores? Believe me, if the public loses its confidence in a sport's commitment to competitive achievement, at the highest level, the fans will disappear, and no amount of marketing razzle-dazzle, in English, Korean or any other language, will bring them back.

The Real Worth of a BA Degree

2008-08-14T18:41:00.000-07:00

Controversial sociologist Charles Murray had an interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal this week (Wed., 8/13/08). It brought into question the actual value of a bachelor's degree, and whether a different standard of achievement (he posed a national certifying exam) would be better.

I think Murray is right. I've felt that the bachelors has outlived its usefulness for some time. A new system, perhaps his certification exam idea, perhaps another paradigm, is likely to appear soon.

But he ignored the real value of the bachelors. No, not for the young folks getting the degree. The real beneficiaries are their parents.

Let's look at the situation. It's High School graduation, and young Tommy and Jennifer are eighteen and sitting on top of the world. But are they ready to move out and support themselves? Not likely. What job will they get that allows them to maintain a decent independent lifestyle, stay safe and healthy and also seek and, hopefully, find their ideal life partner?

Are they ready for the career that will set them on the road to the American Dream?

Not on your life. Even in a growing economy, they'd just get an entry-level job, nothing more. With the expense of a car, rent, clothes, entertainment and food, their credit cards would max out fast. And they'd have to live like pigs in the bargain.

No, they'll never leave the comforts of home just for that. So they decide to stay home and prepare for independence...at some later date, just not now.

So everybody's happy, right? Mom and dad won't be losing their darling after all.

But this also presents a little problem.

What, you may ask, could that possibly be? After all, look how much money the family saves by eliminating college altogether.

But some things may be more important than money, such as ....sanity? I give the arrangement three months, at the most. After that, the stay-at-home kids will suddenly find themselves buried under college application forms.

That's because the post high school stay-at-home lifestyle may be fine for eighteen year olds, but it's torture for their parents. After all, Tommy and Jennifer will get part-time jobs at the mall, if they're lucky, but then what? They're going to go bananas, that's what! They'll hang out with their buddies and girlfriends, drive like lunatics all hours of the day or night, disappear for days at a time, often be delivered by the police to the front door. And that's just the squeaky clean kids! The ones who fall in with the "wrong crowd" will make them look like angels.

No, after three months of this hell, mortgaging the family estate to get their darlings into a nice, safe institution like a four-year college will be paradise on earth.

But if you ask mom and dad if that's the real reason why they're throwing away half their retirement fund, they will forcefully deny it. They will say how necessary the degree is to get into Wharton for that MBA. How the kids will mature into responsible, thinking adults from the experience. After all, dormitory life encourages young people to create lifelong friendships based on a healthy appetite for knowledge and self-improvement. Oh, yes. It's worth every penny.

And I'm sure that mom and dad will never regret it, no matter what the cost.

So let's sing the praises of the bachelors degree. And if Tommy and Jennifer actually learn something in those four years, count that as a bonus.

My Pebble in the Obama Avalanche

2008-08-01T11:56:00.000-07:00

Yes, it's time for my two cents on Barack Obama.

What prompts me to write this is Jodi Kantor's article in the N.Y. Times(7/30/08) on Obama's career as law professor at the University of Chicago.

The article portrays an unusually confident, independent and candid teacher, one whose unstuffy and intellectually challenging demeanor made him very popular with students. On the other hand, his colleagues learned that he was reluctant to take a stand on an issue if it might reflect badly on his career in the future.

Does that mean he was already dreaming of the presidency? Yes, but not for the job he's applying for today.

I have a master's and a law degree, so I've been around academics for a while. He doesn't seem to like the demands of scholarship, but holding court in the classroom is another story. His rapid rise in the "higher education industry" is remarkable, and, don't forget, it happened before his career in politics.

What I'm getting at is simply this. I think that a person's first triumph lays the groundwork for his future goals. I don't care what he might have said in kindergarten, his manner and approach to problem solving fit perfectly in the academic setting, not the arenas of Washington. Yes, it's the presidency he wanted, but of Harvard University or the University of Chicago. It's only when it became apparent that this goal was not reachable - possibly because he couldn't cultivate the support of the right power brokers - that he chose President of the United States...as a substitute.

Maybe he thinks he'll have a better shot as an Ex-President?

Speaking "American" Today (1)

2008-07-24T18:57:00.000-07:00

Like nearly all other native born Americans, I take it for granted that speaking English is essential for living a normal life here. We require that naturalized citizens speak English, and how could it be otherwise? A democracy requires that its citizens choose their government and its policies. It requires that we all follow the law. How could we do those things if our understanding of those laws, of our choices, were not the same for all of us, no matter what language we speak?

This is why speaking English well was always considered essential for participating as a citizen, and why learning English - for non-English speaking immigrants - was the most important part of becoming a citizen.

It is becoming clearer - every single day - that this bedrock principle of American life is no longer true. I mean that it is no longer adequate for serving the needs of the nation.

What prompts me to write this now - even though I've been aware of it for some time - is the issuance of Executive Order 120 by Mayor Bloomberg, which requires "language access" for the effective delivery of city services in New York. Specifically, its main provision mandates that essential public documents be made available, in written translation or by the use of oral interpreters, in the six most commonly spoken languages: Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Korean, Italian and French Creole. However, it also outlines programs that could eventually include many other languages as well.

Am I attaching too much significance to this? After all, it's only an executive order, a statement from a politician, like so many others. Does it really signify a major cultural shift, or will it be ignored while we continue the same paternalistic routines that we've always used because it was easier. Or, to put it another way, do people really care what the words mean as long as they get what they want?

The answer lies in the question itself.

To be continued....

New York Job Outlook

2008-06-24T14:15:00.000-07:00

While the national economy may be in a temporary slow growth period, there is no reason to believe that New York will not continue to draw new business, and the job opportunities that come with it. People have always been energized by the idea of trying to succeed here. Culturally, artists in every medium believe they have the best chance of being discovered by the taste makers that count. In the theatre, for instance, New York is still the standard for defining what making it means for stage struck writers and performers everywhere.

But the promise that New York offers is broader than that. Students and entrepreneurs from all over the world believe that New York is the place to launch their careers or new business ideas. That is why Interpreters Group is in the most advantageous position for success today.

I have been a New Yorker for nearly all of my life. It is especially exciting to see new visitors to the city. They have such fervent hope for the future. Now those new ideas, that talent, can be sent to all parts of the world in an instant. In every language. Diversity of culture has always been one of the major reasons for New York's dominance. We, at Interpreters Group, expect that to continue. Speaking a different language does not have to be the kind of obstacle that it used to be.

My "Hate" Is My Business

2008-04-29T14:03:00.000-07:00

According to FBI records, 45 states and the District of Columbia have criminal statutes that add greater penalties in cases where the victim is selected because of a bias against a particular group. Generally known as "hate crime laws", they are regarded as necessary to protect members of groups most often targeted for criminal violence, usually because of race, religion or national origin. There are 32 states that have similar statutes regarding sexual orientation.

In 1993, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the unanimous Supreme Court decision upholding these laws in the case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell (508 U.S. 47(1993)). The decision rejected a first amendment challenge, ruling that a criminal defendant may face penalty enhancement for the discriminatory motive of the crime, and that this is just as permissible as in civil employment discrimination cases. The decision agreed with the state that bias motivated crimes were "...more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest". It felt that these hypothetical harms (none of which actually occurred in the case) were an "adequate explanation" for the enhancement, and gave Constitutional authority "above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases."

But just how impartial is this state interest? The very popularity of "hate crime" laws belies such a claim. The cases all follow a predictible outline. The media casts its glaring lights on the case and grabs the public's attention for months. Innumerable public figures stoke the controversy with inflammatory but always politically self-serving comments. Then, when the story reaches the verdict stage, it gets even greater traction from the "outrage" of the losers, in contrast with the gratification of the winners. But the most creative politicians carry it further. They'll claim that the law was still unable to eliminate these crimes, so an even stronger law is needed. Eventually, with much fanfare, yet another "bias crime" law will be posted, probably under the name of the most recent martyr.

The spectacle is often overbown, even ridiculous, but may not seem harmful. But I think it is harmful in an insidious way. There has never been a bigot who didn't think he was a victim. A bigot's violent tendencies may be channeled benignly into normal political competition, for a time, but the impulse is always there. Our culture and party politics thrive on such rivalry, as continually fueled by the media. But all that is needed is for some new and horrific act of brutality to occur, the kind ready-made for the "bigotry" label, and the feasting begins. The victim's group immediately screams for extra "hate" points to be added, and the bigots respond in kind, feeling "victimized" themselves. You see, there are always two martyrs in "hate crime" trials: the unfortunate victim, and the convicted criminal who is punished for his beliefs.

There's no way around it. This additional punishment can never be taken as impartial justice. The criminal's selection of a victim, for any reason at all, is always an internal mental occurence that involves no governmental interest unless and until it becomes actualized by overt action that leads to injury. It is sophistry to convert personal prejudices which, no matter how offensive, are part of the private citizen's identity, and therefore not an act punishable by the state, into criminal behavior that warrants separate judgment.

In our system, the mens rea, or intent to commit the act, is essential in proving guilt, but we do not ordinarily assign greater or lesser punishment because some motives are more offensive than others. While the first amendment may not explicitly forbid this, our reluctance to do it is derived from the same impulse. We recoil, chilled, as from the image of Alex in A Clockwork Orange, strapped to a chair, his eyelids stretched open by metal clamps, being forced to watch violent films to the point of suicide; ugly, yes, but so necessary to eliminate conduct deemed "unacceptable" by the government. Proponents say the punishment is the same, only longer, but it is not the same. The enhancement, being solely for the offensive thoughts of the criminal, as opposed to the conduct itself, is transformed into mortification of the spirit, with no link to justice at all.

Singing the H-1B Blues

2008-04-06T08:47:00.000-07:00

On April 1, 2008, employers went through the annual ordeal of filing petitions for temporary work visas for skilled foreign workers in the H-1B category. They are limited to 65,000 petitions, to be effective October 1st, at the start of the fiscal year.

It is a controversial program because the employers feel competitive pressure to find these workers abroad, contending that this country simply does not have enough of them with the necessary skills.

If that is true - and I'm not ready to concede that it is - it's a depressing thought, especially as domestic unemployment is at the highest level in years.

I welcome these employers to advertise those jobs on Interpreters' Group. Our talent pool includes bi-lingual workers with all skills, not only interpreters. Please indicate if you filed an H-1B application when you register with IG to post your jobs. I intend to display them prominently on our Home Page.

An employer's FIRST job that is also listed on an H-1B will be FREE!

Who knows? You might even fill the position before October.

TO REGISTER: www.interpretersgroup.com/registered_employers_Registration.asp

Citizenship in the 21st Century

2008-03-25T10:07:00.000-07:00

As we look at the questions confronting governments today, we see certain problems arising all over the world. One of them, certainly, is the definition of citizenship. People are expected to be citizens of one country their entire lives. This makes sense because loyalty to one's country is a virtue that is valued everywhere. The people of any country expect and demand patriotism of all of its citizens. To die for their country, if necessary.

But, with the increasing interaction of people throughout the real and the cyberworld, can we always rely upon this? I know several people with dual and even multiple citizenships. They can own property and even vote in more than one country. A child born in the United States is automatically a citizen, even if its parents are not. We also have doctrines of comparative law which decide which country's laws apply in divorces, business contracts, inheritance and many other matters.

As people enter into more of these extra-national relationships, I expect the principles of comparative law will become more complicated. The definition of citizenship can be expected to change, as well.

Why Have A Public Theatre?

2008-03-16T09:51:00.000-07:00

It's a legitimate question, but, for me, it is answered in CONVERSATIONS IN TUSCULUM, a new play by Richard Nelson. The entire play consists of conversations between Brutus, Cicero and Cassius at country villas while dictator Julius Caesar is waging war in Spain.

No swordplay, assassinations or sex. Just talk, and more talk (although some of it concerns sex). The reviews were mostly negative. I was lukewarm about going, but I'm a subscriber. The one good thing about negative reviews; it allows you to be pleasantly surprised.

It's NOT talk, it's drama. These men are lifelong friends and related by marriage. They each have ideas in their own minds, but are not sure what they are. Of course, we know what will happen. The drama is in seeing the germ of the idea grow within them as a result of the discussions. Part of the excitement is seeing acting of this stature which is totally committed to having otherwise dry discourse become dramatically alive.

Amazingly, the talk seems perfectly natural for these particular historical figures and - at the same time! - illuminating about the challenges in today's America. The parallel between President Bush's policies and Caesar's is arrived at through the organic development of dramatic themes. It is never strained.

THIS is the purpose of a Public Theatre. This play will probably be forgotten after the next election (although it shouldn't be). But, for a little over two hours, we are persuaded to think about our own choices as citizens in a new way, and that is stimulating.

Before Our Eyes

2008-03-09T10:45:00.000-07:00

Just some passing thoughts on the changes taking place in the world now.

Things are swirling before our eyes, which means that the power structure that was in place -- at least until the collapse of the Berlin Wall -- has also collapsed. There is no single political, cultural or commercial leader that holds the dominant position today. It may be years before that happens.

In the meantime, the internet is the most powerful instrument in determining the new power structure. Everyone is in competition to get the broadest support, which means that multi-lingual and multi-cultural perspectives have the advantage.

What you will see from Interpreters Group in the future will reflect that competition.

We want you to be excited by the new opportunities this offers you. We also want it be fun. You will see new partnerships, new features and more invitations for the membership to participate. We want to encourage your ambitions and prosperity, as we welcome your encouragement of ours.

New Announcement

2007-12-26T08:06:00.000-08:00

Hello. Yes, it's been awhile, but I have some news. Interpreters' Group has begun a new partnership with JobTarget. This will mean that multiple job listings will be posted, thereby creating new career opportunities for foreign-language speaking readers. Our new price schedule -- for employers only! -- is also posted on the website. As before, job seekers pay no fee or commission.

I anticipate starting a discussion of the news media, tentatively called "the first line".

More on that later.

For now, happy holidays!

Why Credentials Matter

2007-07-18T12:56:00.000-07:00

There have been recent news reports - in The New York Times, among others news outlets - of faked credentials being discovered in three teachers' records in the NYC school system. All three seem to result from altered transcripts at Tuoro College. The Times article indicated that as many as 50 other transcripts may have been tampered with this year alone. The three persons under investigation had been paraprofessionals who were appointed as full teachers based on what may have been phony degrees.

We know this is not uncommon. All professions are afflicted with credentials fraud, and we at Interpreters' Group want to express our serious concern.

Although we at present disclaim any responsibility for false claims in the directory of resumes, we expect to take a more active role in the future. For now, we strongly urge all interpreters and translators to be absolutely truthful. Err on the side of caution. For instance, if you haven't graduated yet, don't say that you already have certification.

You'll find this is good advice if you plan to be a language professional.

Illegal? Sure, like Tony Soprano

2007-06-12T06:37:00.000-07:00

At first, with the blank screen, I thought my cable blew out. When I realized that was the ending, I was disappointed. But later, after it sunk in, I knew it was perfect. It was glorious.

The Sopranos was always many stories in one: about good and evil; the trade-off between our values and ambitions; the reality that lurks behind any definition of the "American Dream"; the seething conflicts that make up our diverse culture. The academics will be feeding off of it for years to come.

But one theme was always explicit. That a huge number of Americans, even a majority, have only a limited commitment to the rule of law. That is the case in America today, and the final episode nailed it.

How appropriate, how brilliant, that the episode should be shown right after the defeat of Immigration reform in the Senate. The parallels are blinding. Tony Soprano was only able to thrive because he was providing a service that people wanted. Everyone knew he was a criminal. He could have been "neutralized" by the criminal justice system. It would have taken time and money, of course, but it would have happened.

But then what? David Chase was saying that the system was in place for the next Tony Soprano. And we don't have a criminal justice system that can prevent that. Why not? Because crime at the Sopranos level only succeeds because of public support. Never openly. While individual criminals may be brought to justice, our own communities have a built-in structure that accommodates criminal commerce from top to bottom. We live among those people. Their children play with our kids on the soccer team.

The "illegal" twelve million or so aliens that have settled in our country over the past few decades are not invisible. Their employers know who they are. And we continue to go to the restaurants where they clean the tables.

The law was last changed in 1986. But since then, no one was preventing Congress from putting money into a genuine enforcement of the immigration laws. But that can never be done at the border alone. It demands the criminal prosecution of employers who accept and even recruit illegal aliens throughout the entire country.

It is clear that the politicians who demonstrate their "outrage" over anything that even suggests amnesty have an immigration policy of their own. In two words: do nothing!

They don't want to change a thing.

Some of those interviewed have said that it's better to defeat this bill than to accept one that is this "flawed".

That's a lie. Their policy is to defeat any immigration reform at all.

We may lock up Tony Soprano. But we'll all be ready when AJ's gang supplies hijacked designer jeans for the chains at the mall.

Premature (one hopes) Lament for Lost Immigration Reform 2007

2007-06-03T19:31:00.000-07:00

It is undisputed that there will be no genuine reform of the immigration system unless Congress creates a politically viable solution for processing the over twelve million undocumented aliens now living in this country. Last year I proposed, in a newswire article, that one possible answer is the creation of individual accounts for those aliens who have resided here and have broken no other law than to enter the country illegally. These accounts would set a dollar amount on unpaid taxes and entitlements issued, and eventual citizenship would depend upon repayment of the debt.

I think this is still a workable solution, but it needs the cooperation of the Mexican and other country-of-origin governments to succeed. Specifically, those countries can sequester the assets of any of their citizens who are currently living in the United States and wish to become American citizens. The assets can then be applied toward payment of the alien's personal debt. Of course, the alien should have the right to refuse this, but that would still mean that he or she cannot be granted American citizenship until the debt is repaid.

I believe that such assets may be larger than one would think, since it may include inherited property.

However, this is only my personal take on an idea that others have suggested. And it looked, for awhile, that Congress would be willing to create some form of repayment system or fine to pave the way for eventual citizenship.

But now it looks like that chance is gone.

If anything, it seems that conservatives in his own party feel so betrayed by President Bush that they might kill immigration reform solely to deny him a political victory.

If that happens, I'll examine another approach which is likely to be even more painful.

Keira Knightley's "Libel"

2007-05-27T11:01:00.000-07:00

Although I didn't see the original article, I am disturbed by London's High Court's ruling in favor of Keira Knightley's libel action against the Daily Mail. It seems that the paper ran a picture of the startlingly thin actress in a bikini and suggested that she was partly responsible for the death of a teenange girl, who had died from starvation. The Court apparently agreed with Knightley that the article implied the actress was lying when she denied having an eating disorder.

It is hard to disagree with the actress that she was deeply offended and hurt. The story of the girl's death was placed alongside the picture, and captioned with a quote, allegedly from the girl's mother: "If Pictures Like This One of Keira Knightley Carried a Health Warning, My Darling Daughter Might Have Lived."

But what disturbs me is the interposition of libel law. Granted, the paper did imply that the picture might have inspired the girl to starve, but what actual facts are in dispute? That Knightley was lying about having anorexia? That was the paper's opinion. Why should it be libelous to believe that someone is lying? Aside from the fact that the "quote" from the girl's mother is highly suspect, I don't see how a Court can punish a paper for its speculations, no matter how cruel.

I can see a libel action if the paper had printed a plain lie, such as, for instance, that there was a doctor who had actually diagnosed Knightley as anorexic, and had told her. But this wasn't the basis of her lawsuit. She wanted the paper legally punished for merely speculating about her honesty, and that this might have contributed to a girl's death. The speculation was baseless, cruel and stupid, but it did not misstate any known fact. That shouldn't be against the law.

Design Your Career

2007-05-21T13:15:00.000-07:00

We live in an age of change, where the many roles of the individual in society are being transformed by the internet revolution. I don't think it is possible to define oneself as any one kind of worker - a lawyer (as I am), a teacher, a language interpreter, a cab driver - with the kind of certainty we used to have that this is what you will be doing in twenty years.

Perhaps it is better to think of yourself as a provider of services requiring various skills. The internet allows you to announce your skills to the global marketplace, and to transact deals directly with customers who need someone with just those skills.

For those who are proficient in more than one language, new opportunities present themselves.

Specifically, there is no reason to limit yourself to the job of translator - where your language skills are only used for one type of market transaction - when the internet allows you to compete for many other types of jobs, but with the added skill of knowing another language.

Think of the career possibilities!

My hope is that Interpreters' Group will be used by its registered members to make the fullest use of these new opportunities.

David's Elevator: A Fable

2007-03-10T16:08:00.000-08:00

(Although Wider Circles will often reflect my business interests as President of Interpreters' Group, LLC, I will also write about general social concerns in what I hope will be an entertaining way. The story of David and Metropop City is meant to evoke a response from readers - pro or con - because it is a subject about which I have strong feelings.)

METROPOP CITY

After automobiles were banned, entire communities had to be re-designed for the way people could live together. It was decided that one of the most practical, economical and environmentally friendly lifestyles would be to build living communities upwards, which would eliminate the waste, pollution and corruption of the old automobile culture.

David lived in such a place, Metropop City, where all the residents lived in buildings with elevators. This was where he was born, and it was always home to him. It was exciting when he first left the apartment and was taken to other parts of the building.

"You just push a button, and it takes you where you want to go."

David didn't remember how old he was when his mother first said those words to him, but he never forgot them. He probably wasn't old enough to reach the elevator buttons himself.

David loved riding in the elevator of his building ever since he was a little boy. He lived with his mother and father in an apartment on the twelfth floor. His mother or father would press the "twelve" button and, quick as a blink, he would be at his front door.

In Metropop City, where people lived vertically in tall buildings instead of spread out in flat communities, the planners worked hard so that people could have the best quality of life. Every building contained the same kinds of things that other communities had - restaurants, schools, movie houses, libraries - but they were all stacked up on floors of the building, and people reached them by an elevator. There were even floors that were "open air parks", with no windows on the sides, where kids could play ball or swim in the lake.

David's building was one of the older ones in Metropop City. There was a public elevator for the residents, and it took people directly to their floors. Sometimes public elevators had operators who let the people in and out. They stopped on every floor, and you didn't have to press a button. But in either case, everyone mixed together and stood next to each other the whole time. Anyone who came into the building could use it.

But there were some private elevators in David's building too. Having a private elevator meant you purchased your own elevator and operated it yourself. Anyone could buy an elevator and use it only for his family. Some people liked doing that because they didn't like having to share an elevator with other people, and they could get to their floors faster.

As he grew older, David saw many of his friends move out to buildings where you needed to buy your own elevator to get to your floor. These buildings became popular, and the older ones like David's began to decay. But David still liked living in his building, and liked to ride in the public elevator too. He used to get out on unfamiliar floors where he didn't know anyone, and just walk around it. Some floors had coffee shops and bookstores. He could go inside and just look at people enjoying themselves. He made some good friends that way. But most of his friends said that David should get his license to operate his own elevator because one day he'll need one for his family. David thought about it seriously.

As he grew older, David saw that most boys his age said they really liked operating their own elevators. Sometimes they would ride it up and down for hours and never even leave the elevator car. They loved, really loved, to go up and down as fast as they could. They bought the latest elevator models which could always go faster than the previous year's model. The buildings had rules about how fast you could go, but most people seemed to ignore them. They could be fined by the building's owners for going so fast, but usually weren't. They told David there must be something wrong with anyone who didn't like to operate an elevator as fast as he could go. They couldn't understand why anyone, especially a young man like David, wouldn't pay money just for the thrill of operating his own private elevator at top speed. They said that girls became so sexually excited by riding in fast elevators with boys that they became uncontrollably amorous, and forced the boys to have sex right then and there!

David didn't know what to say. He had heard some of these wild tales, but explained that he still couldn't understand what was so exciting about pushing a button to move a machine.

Try as he might, David couldn't look at the whole elevator experience the way many other people did. He had always thought of an elevator as a way to get to someplace else, not as something that was supposed to be "fun". He had lots of other ways to have fun. He liked that the public elevator was generally safe and not expensive and that the building's owners usually fixed it when it broke down, which wasn't often. Sure, it wasn't perfect. But he didn't mind climbing the stairs on those rare occasions when he couldn't use it. Sometimes he used the stairs anyway, just because...well, because it felt good to make a different choice sometimes.

The newer buildings only had private elevators and didn't have any staircases at all, so there was no way to leave or enter your apartment except by your personal elevator. In fact, many of these buildings didn't have walking space anywhere, so you couldn't even go to your next door neighbor except from your elevator. These buildings were very different from David's. The apartments were generally much larger, sometimes with just two units per floor. While they didn't cost any more than David's apartment, and were usually a lot larger, the cost of buying and maintaining a private elevator was almost as much as the apartment itself. Also, there were so many elevators in the building that the power to run them cost more than in David's building. And so there were more power blackouts. The elevators also broke down more from constant use. Although the public elevators also broke down, they were bigger and lasted longer, and they cost each resident less to replace because the cost was shared by all of them.

But the people in the newer buildings said it was worth the extra expense. They complained that the public walkway spaces allowed people who didn't even live in the building to get in. David knew this was true, because sometimes he found homeless men, even families with children, lying about in the hallways when he came out of his apartment. Some of these people were beggars, even criminals. But the newer buildings were constructed so that nobody without a private elevator had any space to walk at all. The residents said they didn't mind this because their children were protected from the non-resident men and the sometimes violent children who lurked about in the hallways and the lobby of David's building. And David had to admit this was at least partly true. Many of those poor families and single adults lived in David's building, but on the cheaper lower floors. Those families couldn't afford private elevators. They used the public elevators and stairways to go to floors where good working families, like David's, had an apartment. And, sadly, David also had to admit that sometimes they committed crimes.

The people in the newer buildings said they couldn't raise a family safely in buildings with public elevators. They said that using private elevators exclusively was the only safe choice for raising your family.

ELEVATOR DRIVING RULES

But it was tricky to operate the private elevators. You had to be trained and licensed to do it. David took the test and got his own license. He felt it was good to be prepared, even though he didn't need it in his own building, because he just might need to do it someday. You see he had nothing against having private elevators. He just felt it odd that so many people lived in buildings where you had no other choice.

For instance, most of the newer buildings had enormous retail stores in the lobby. Sometimes the first three floors of the building were nothing but stores that were rented to retail outlets, usually the largest chains. In the mornings, when the stores opened, the building roared with the collective hum of most of the private elevators coming down. Most of the people in the building did all of their shopping in these stores. But most of the people who worked in the stores also lived in the building. These were usually the teenage or young adult children of the residents. The stores depended on the available pool of cheap young workers, even though some of them were college graduates who decided it was better to come back to live with Mom and Dad. For a while, anyway. As often as not, however, their parents decided it was better to send them away to graduate school - even if they had to mortgage the apartment to pay for it! - because anything was better than having their unmarried kids living at home, with their crazy boyfriends or girlfriends constantly running in and out, and the building security having to drop them off at two A.M. because they smashed up their elevators again!

The public debate about elevators was always intense, but, just about the time David graduated from college, it really seemed to increase. People began to notice that the rides in the private elevators were taking a lot longer, and they weren't happy about it. More people wanted to move into the newer buildings, and the owners became even wealthier. They were able to get variances so that they could build more floors on top of the building, which led to even more elevators and a longer riding time.

It became more dangerous too. This was because of the way private elevator traffic was managed. The more private elevators in a building, the more shaftways were needed. Building owners kept constructing new shaftways, but the number of new elevators always outpaced the number of shafts. Sharing shaftspace meant more delays while you waited, hovering, for other elevators to pass. Then you waited while they stopped and unloaded. They kept putting more and more signals and signs in the shafts, but people often ignored them, just as they did the speed limits. And when there were no signs, elevator drivers were expected to make "experienced" guesses about when they had to stop or go, which often resulted in collisions, sometimes fatal ones, so that there were long delays while emergency rescue crews took injured riders to the hospital, and even longer ones when the service elevators removed the damaged cars that were blocking the shaftway traffic.

SHAFTING

Drivers' impatience with the delays led to one of the most dangerous elevator driving practices, known as "shafting". This was when drivers crossed into other shafts at high speeds, even if another car in the shaft was also in operation. The drivers were supposed to "signal" with a special light on the car, but there were many collisions. The drivers would then exit their cars on the floor nearest the collision, and would stand there arguing, sometimes coming to blows, over who caused the accident and what to tell their insurance companies, since their premium rates were sure to go up. Sometimes building security needed to be called to break up these altercations.

BILL'S PROPOSAL

One day David was invited to a party by his friend Seth. Seth lived in one of the newer buildings, and he brought David up to the party in his private elevator. David had once been in the building a few years before to see Bill, a friend from college, but had since lost touch with him. He remembered that his last letter to Bill came back "addressee unknown". Still, he hoped that Bill was invited to the party so that he could see him again.

On his way up in Seth's private elevator, David remembered the last time he saw Bill. Bill was a little older than David, and his wife had just had their first child. David remembered Bill as having what Bill called "progressive" ideas, although some people just thought them "odd". He believed that it was time a public elevator should be installed in the building. Even though he was raising a small child, he thought that the fears of outsiders were exaggerated, and not worth the unnecessary cost and extra work of using private elevators for even the shortest trips within the building. He thought that staircases should be made to go to the other floors, and walkways for moving around your own floor. He told David that the Building Council was meeting the next day, and he would publicly announce his proposal then. He knew that many in the building would resist change at all cost, but he believed that the time was ripe, and that some of his neighbors would agree. David remembered how excited Bill was about his proposal. He was curious about what happened at that meeting, and whether it had something to do with his losing contact with Bill.

David was disappointed because he didn't see Bill anywhere at the party. It was a very spacious and expensive apartment on the top floor, with a glorious view of Metropop City. There were many guests milling about. They looked prosperous and confident, even though most of them were not much older than David. To be frank, David felt a little intimidated. Bill was different, though, because he was always forthright about promoting his ideas. If anyone could get people to change things, he could.

Finally, he mentioned Bill's name to Seth. Seth said the name wasn't familiar, but he'd only bought his apartment two years ago. He told David that some of the other guests might remember him.

But something strange seemed to happen every time he asked one of the other guests about Bill. Unlike Seth, the mention of Bill's name seemed to make them uncomfortable. They all denied knowing him, but also seemed to want to discreetly move away from David, usually by suddenly spotting a lost friend who most conveniently appeared at that moment.

Suddenly, one of the guests who had been watching David walked over, gently took hold of his arm and pulled him to a quiet corner. He said his name was Dwight, and that he remembered the meeting where Bill made his proposal to the Building Council. Dwight said that he didn't know Bill very well, even though they had moved into the building at about the same time. But he remembered listening intently to the proposal, and thought it was worth taking seriously.

But a number of the other residents had a very different reaction.

Dwight said that the more prosperous residents were quickest to criticize the idea. The owner of the largest bank, for instance, said that taxes and operating expenses were already so high that the new construction would add enormous costs to living in the building. The local realtor said that public elevators would slow building traffic even more, and studies showed that public elevators led to increased crime, which would lower property values. But the loudest complaints came from residents who were involved with the private elevator business in the building. There were three top elevator manufacturers in Metropop City, and they all had dealerships in the building. The heads of the dealerships all lived in the building. They brought up the lack of comfort, the dirty public cars, the crowds and the excess travel time. But Bill said that many public elevators were now faster than private ones because they had their own shaftways, which meant there was none of the traffic congestion that plagued the private users.

Dwight vividly remembered that the members of the Building Council often laughed when they discussed Bill's proposal. They seemed to want to talk about Bill's "strange" habits, his family background or his appearance rather than discuss the proposal itself. He said they did this carefully, never saying outright that people shouldn't trust Bill, but their tone was unmistakable: he is simply not like one of us!

Dwight said that the Council Chairman, who owned the largest department store in the building, and in many other buildings as well, suddenly declared the meeting over because he had a personal emergency. But the Chairman then went off to what looked like his own "private" meeting with several of the Council members and some residents who were part of his "inner circle". These included: an executive from the power company, which raked in millions every month from the use of private elevators by every resident of the building; a video star whose wildly popular character, "Jumpin' Jack", was a super-hero crimefighter who roamed the shaftways in his souped-up elevator car that could burst through the roof and into other buildings; the President of "Parents Concerned", a group whose members maintained that public elevators threatened to lower school standards by admitting too many "culturally deprived" children from the lower floors; the director of programming for a major network, which made most of its advertising revenue from the elevator companies; no less than three mortgage company owners, and several other people that Dwight didn't even recognize as building residents. Dwight also mentioned - although he hadn't see him personally - that the Deputy Mayor of Metropop City was rumored to be in the room.

Nobody could say for certain what happened after the meeting. Dwight only knew that only a week later Bill's company transferred him to another city. But Dwight remembered the address, and David wrote a letter to Bill saying that he missed him and that he wanted to know how he liked his new life outside Metropop City.

Bill wrote David a nice letter, saying how glad he was to hear from him again. He said that the day after the meeting his boss called him into his office because he had received "complaints" about his work. Bill said that his boss would not tell him who made the complaints, but that they went back "several months". Although he wanted to fire Bill, he decided instead to transfer him out of Metropop City.

Now Bill lives next door to his own Supervisor, who has become his best friend. They both belong to the Building Council and go to meetings together where nobody has ever brought up the dangerous idea of public elevators.

Reality TV

2007-03-07T13:35:00.000-08:00

Is there no end to these "Reality TV" shows? I don't see how you can do parodies of them. Are they beyond satire? Supernanny is about someone training kids who have been publicly identified as brats by their own parents. What's next? How about mothers-in-law, or maybe ex boy/girl friends showing up suddenly at your front door.

I remember Alan Funt and Candid Camera, where people were set up with booby trap situations like exploding pizzas or roller skating dentists. My own parents were on one of the last shows. They were told they had "won" a free dinner in a restaurant for their (30th, I think) anniversary. They were seated - ceremoniously - by the waiter, and then totally ignored for the rest of the evening. Their bickering and fumbling attempts to get service made for some knee-slapping laughs, until Funt came out and did his patented "surprise" routine.

I think today's TV producers are smarter. They've upped the payoff by letting the public "performers" in on the concept. They devise some playground-level game (a great race, cooking contests, selecting a wife, etc.), then let comic "judges", or the viewers, vote on a winner. The prize may be greater than a free dinner (my parents did get served eventually), but it's nothing compared to what the producers get for exploiting the contestants.

Thus the public can finally see human behavior in its "natural" (in the Hobbesian sense) state!

Are You Listening?

2007-02-18T09:26:00.000-08:00

What's that sound? I think I hear the opening of doors of opportunity. Yes, it may be new ways for those with multiple language skills to use them for professional advancement. Within a very few remaining days, our website, www.interpretersgroup.com, will be open to accept employment ads for our membership in the Directory. If you haven't seen it yet, check it out and register yourselves as interpreters. The website will look very different soon, but the Registration and Directory pages are the same. Stay tuned!

Pan's Labyrinth

2007-02-10T19:20:00.000-08:00

While watching this strange misfire, I couldn't help thinking about the beloved children' classic, The Wizard of Oz. What if, I mused, Dorothy had seen a group of uniformed Nazis goose-stepping down the yellow brick road. Or, if the Nazis had tied the cowardly lion to a tree and tortured him with razors. Well, if those images whet your appetite, you may enjoy Pan's Labyrinth.

It's not that the filmmaker, Guillermo del Toro, is untalented. A lot of technical skill went into this project, which tells of a young girl in fascist Spain near the end of the Second World War. The girl's mother, a widow, takes up with a brutal career soldier, known only as The Captain. She becomes pregnant with his child and, along with her daughter, who is just entering puberty, comes to live with him until the child is born.

The film interweaves scenes of the Captain's relentless pursuit of Communist partisans (here simply called "the reds"), which are brutally realistic, with scenes of the girl's fantasy adventures with a faun, or goat-man, who tells her she is the daughter of the King of the Underworld, and must return there after performing dangerous tasks. The girl obeys because she believes her mother would die if she did not.

If this sounds like an uplifting children's adventure, it doesn't play that way. The back-and-forth technique makes for some very clumsy transitions, and the wartime melodrama is just ugly, "bad guy/ good guy" stuff. The actress playing the young girl, obviously talented, must have been cautioned never to smile, thus conveying pathological tendencies more than the magical perspective of childhood.

It is very difficult to portray complex reality from the point of view of a child. In 81/2 and Amarcord, Fellini was able to show how a child might view political and religious conflicts that went beyond his understanding. More recently, Miyazaki has shown that the fear and confusion of a girl's sexual awakening can be expressed with subtlety and imagination in animated form. This film, while admirably ambitious, lacks their artistry.

Starting Small

2007-02-03T13:43:00.000-08:00

The Times had an intriguing little story (2/1/07) about a small, affluent community in Palo Alto, California. The district school board voted on -- and rejected -- a plan for a Mandarin immersion program for about 40 kindergarten and first grade students. A group of highly motivated parents wanted a "leg up" for the children, who would be facing an even more competitive and interactive world than the one they had to contend with. But many of the parents felt a little queasy about it, and I'm not sure why. The article briefly discussed the major objection: that only a few students would be given this privilege, and it was "undemocratic" to lock out the children of less affluent districts. One parent is quoted as saying "...a public school is supposed to be a public school."

Can't argue with that. And taxpayers are supposed to provide equal opportunities for all children. But they don't, and there is no law that can force them to. In the meantime, however, the world is forcing even the best and brightest of us to demonstrate excellence. The immersion program may have turned out to be a fiasco; we'll never know. But if it accomplished even a small measure of its goals, that works to the benefit of all children because it refines the working model for teaching foreign languages at the youngest age level. We don't have enough information about that yet.

As we say at Interpreters' Group: "Don't be afraid to lead the way!"

Isaac B. Singer

2007-01-27T16:10:00.000-08:00

One of the greatest pleasures of language is reading fiction. Just yesterday, I was reminded again of just how important great writing is to me. I read a short -- very short, in fact -- story by Isaac B. Singer called "The Seance". Besides the delight of the story itself, which concerned the devious efforts of a widow to romantically entrap an impoverished professor, I marvelled at the sheer exuberance, the confidence, of Singer's writing. He was a genius, of course, but of a special type. He was the storyteller. He knew, instinctively, that he had the special gift of telling stories well, and that the public cannot resist this. Above all, he had the voice of the great storyteller. Whether it's Hemingway. Poe, Henry James, Conrad -- any of the great ones -- the writer's voice always seems to command the reader: "Stay! Until the moment the good Lord takes you away, you belong to me!"

What is most fascinating about Singer is that he wrote in Yiddish, a dying language at that time (not any more). But since he was fluent in English, he supervised the translations closely. Critics who know both languages have noted that the English translations are not literal, but slanted to the taste of his American readers. It almost becomes a retelling of the story.

I'd like to hear from people who have read Singer in Yiddish. Are the English translations very different?

2007-01-15T07:16:00.000-08:00

I went to the Adventures in Travel Expo at Pier 94 in Manhattan on Sunday, January 14th, and was a bit overwhelmed. The venue is huge, comparable to the Javits Center, and maneuvering within the crowds is exhausting. It had well over a hundred exhibitors lined up in columns of booths, but I only managed to talk to forty or so. Most were eager to hear about Interpreters' Group, and many said they'd call up to know when we start posting jobs.

The expo was a bargain ($10.00 adult admission, pre-registered) in that it had huge amounts of giveaway material, some of it, like Travelocity's pocket folder, quite useful. There were costumed dance performers and musical acts from Asia, Africa and Latin America. The children, many of them in strollers, were surprisingly well behaved, and really seemed to enjoy themselves.

I think the expo was a terrific way to introduce families to some intriguing vacation ideas, from Alaskan fishing lodges to vacation rental homes in North Carolina to customized tours in China and Tibet. Judging from the excitement in the crowd, I think the exhibitors will be seeing a lot of new customers.

2007-01-06T09:30:00.000-08:00

Apparently an Arabic translator for the FBI was a significant player in a recent counterterrorism case, according to an Associated Press (1/4/06) report out of Rochester, N.Y. A grocer of Palestinian descent pled guilty in Federal District court to trying to deceive agents about his brother's plans to go to Israel to become a suicide bomber. Prosecutors reportedly said he destroyed his brother's letter detailing the plan, but investigators managed to photograph it first. A copy of the same letter was found on the would-be bomber when he was stopped at the airport in Rochester on his way to Jordan. No doubt court papers contained the translation of the letter, but I would also imagine investigators used an Arabic interpreter in some of their interrogations. It would be interesting to know more about the training and security requirements for interpreters in these jobs.

2006-12-24T12:31:00.000-08:00

Babel represents an advance for the team of director Alejandro Inarritu and writer Guillermo Arriaga over their previous collaboration, the needlessly convoluted 21 Grams. This is an intense, absorbing narrative of four stories which are connected in non-traditional ways. The audience is not aware of all of these connections until the end of the film; many of the characters never become aware of them.

One theme is how politics, language and cultural barriers, and the means to overcome them, have unintended consequences. For instance, how did international politics delay the medical treatment of a wounded American woman in Morocco? Was it also complicated by the use of sign language by a deaf-mute teenage girl in Japan? On top of this, how did the delay of treatment affect an undocumented Mexican woman's life in San Diego?

The film intercuts all of their stories in an exciting and original way, but the fracturing of the narrative can unsettle audiences. That's why it didn't hurt for these trailblazing filmmakers to have a little of the showman in them. The film is front-loaded with mega-star power (Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett), fair-haired moppets in peril, hot Japanese schoolgirl outfits and, to nail it down, the supremely appealing Adriana Barraza as the Mexican woman. Smart moves all. If you're going to demand so much of an audience, give them candy in every bite.

Afterwards, one is forced to think of the ways modern technology creates new interdependencies between people, even if they live on different continents and will never meet each other.

The N.Y. Times had an interesting article (12/27/06, B7) concerning how immigrant children are tested in English proficiency as part of the No Child Left Behind law. It seems the law requires testing of third and fourth graders who may have been in the school for only a year. This often lowers the overall test scores for the school, and can mean the loss of federal money. But isn't the purpose of the law to evaluate how the school is performing? Advocates of the law say that you need a basis to compare the child's progress, and that it helps the child to have that as soon as possible. Opponents contend that a poor score will stigmatize the child, and actually slow the learning process. An additional factor is the community's image to prospective homebuyers who may choose to live in a district where the schools have highest scores.

Although the legal implications remain open to debate, one thing is certain: the law is forcing us to re-examine assumptions about the necessary language skills of an educated person in this country. All children, no matter what their native language, need to begin acquiring those skills while they are young. If language barriers prevent the child from learning them, how will that person be able to live independently after graduating from high school? This is a problem today, and it will only get worse without a new approach in public education. I will be addressing this issue in the future. I would like to hear from teachers and others involved in bi-lingual education.

2006-12-12T17:04:00.000-08:00

Let me take a moment to introduce myself.

My name is Michael Scott, and I live in New York City. My small circle includes my family, office colleagues, some long-standing friends.

As an Administrative Law Judge for New York State, I hold fair hearings about a person's right to various entitlement benefits. I work hard, but I enjoy the intensity, the contact with people telling their stories. Many of them speak in foreign languages, and often a professional interpreter is needed. I have been impressed with their overall professionalism under difficult circumstances.

Many of them are concerned that the job of interpreter or translator can never be a lifetime career that can support a family. They are hopeful, but until now few of them could say they had job security.

I believe that is changing now, and it is mostly due to globalization. The computer has vastly increased the rate of business activity. Nowadays, traditional business owners operate with the expectation that they can reach consumers anywhere in the world. Their products and services can reach people who speak different languages, and all that needs to be done is to communicate with them in their language.

Of course that has been true for decades. Walt Disney movies have long been popular throughout the world, even though the same animated characters speak different languages when shown in other countries. But it is all happening much faster now. That's why the opportunities for language interpreters have improved so much. It is unpredictable, but also exciting because the skill of being bi-lingual is such an advantage today.

That, in brief, is my perspective. I will be writing about the interpreting profession during this period of change. I hope that many of you will send me your own opinions and experiences. Various friends and language professionals will do "guest" blogs in this space, and you should be reading interviews with people whom I believe are "leading the way" into the future.

Finally, you should be learning some things about me as well. No, not because of popular demand, but because I just want to get my ideas across. Or just talk about things that annoy or delight me. Until next time, I wish all of you happy holidays!

Welcome to The Interpreters' Group!

2006-12-06T07:07:00.000-08:00

This blog will be dedicated to serving those interested in the profession of foreign language interpreting and translating. Given the need for global communication in today's economy, we are sure there will be a lot to discuss. To sign up as a professional interpreter, please visit our website at

www.interpretersgroup.com.