Saturday, December 7, 2019
Michael Levin, Member of Congress
12/8/19
Dear Mike
In the next few days you will be casting a vote that will have consequences far beyond whether a President will face a Senate trial for removal from office. While it is your choice to make, as your constituent I am taking the opportunity to express my view, trusting that you will give it serious thought and then remit a timely response
Senator Clinton has stated that she lost the election based on a single event, which was Director Comey's public letter to the Senate that the case against her criminal dereliction of safeguarding secret information had been breached. As far as I know this was the single article that predicted that she would lose the election because of this announcement, which I suggest you read. The writer, who happened to be me, faced unanimous condemnation for what what was an example of the group think, or the current term, bias confirmation, which resulted in a reaction that vitiated the rational thought process of the readers of this most popular liberal web site. I responded to each critical comment. yet did not get single reader to dare go on the record agreeing with my observation.
This is the same dynamic that is occurring among the Democratic members of the House at this time. A virtually unanimous vote of Democrats to impeach the President will more than most examples of irrational group behavior, adversely affect the course of history. Nothing will solidify Donald Trumps grasp on power than Democrats uniting against him.
I will continue to elaborate my argument on this website that I will begin right after posting this. Let me add, that if you are convinced by my argument, which happens to be informed by my obtaining a MPhil from Columbia University in Social Psychology that focused precisely the potency of group dynamics, you would have to stand alone in defying the very primal need for cohesion among the crowd.
I would not be making this effort if I were not convinced that Democrats are about to make an historic mistake, one that reflects our human makeup which takes an act of rare courage to confront.
Al Rodbell
AlRodbell.com
760--505-1170
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
Fake or Biased N.Y.Times- You Decide
February 4, 2016
Yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts discussed how partisanship is eroding the public's faith in the Court reflecting principles that transcend political ideology. If this is a type of pandemic on our democracy, its valuable to find an example, especially when it's from a news organization respected for its legitimacy and dedication to truth.
It's rare to find in situ a virtual laboratory controlled example of the endemic disease described by Justice Roberts that is isolated from contamination, as clear and clean as a three line paragraph that purph the email that I sent on the day of publication:
Given the topics that the N.Y. Times covers -- wars, revolutions, famine, disease ; their articles all fall short of perfection in squeezing complex events, sometimes breaking through the fog of war or disaster, into the allotted space on deadline.
The story described here, is nothing like those. It is a three sentence paragraph that paraphrases a legal decision that had been published months previously, that was blatantly, beyond reasonable doubt, not only wrong, but in the refusal to acknowledge this, became what I can only describe as a secular sin, a lie --not only by the writer, but the editors comprising the institution of The New York Times. Only after my initial contact with the Public Editor did I learn that the writer of this article was Professor Adam Liptak; by any measure of his expertise in law and journalism, along with the esteem of his peers, deserving the assumption of his having written a legitimate summary of the decision. He wrote to me defending, not so much the accuracy of this paraphrase, but that it captured its tone. He could have done both, but he sacrificed even a simulacrum of accuracy for conveying a tone that was invidious to the judge, that is not evident from a fair reading of the decision.
Knowing my claim had to surmount Professor Liptak's prestige, I went to considerable efforts to validate it. A stroke of luck was my connection with a person with equal legal accomplishments and prestige of the the writer, Professor Eugene Volokh, who when he read my email to the Times Public Editor, shot back his agreement, and that he planed to write about this in his column in The Washington Post. In it, he surgically dissected Liptak's summary:
This has consequences, which I explored in my long version of this report, made more severe by the century and half reputation for integrity of the N.Y. Times. Let's call this an abstract, with my invitation to those interested to go to the long version for a more detailed personal backstory and an exploration how this "infection" of a great newspaper can be staunched.
Al Rodbell
Encinitas CA
-----------------
Comprehensive Working Papers including email exchanges among all parties.
Yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts discussed how partisanship is eroding the public's faith in the Court reflecting principles that transcend political ideology. If this is a type of pandemic on our democracy, its valuable to find an example, especially when it's from a news organization respected for its legitimacy and dedication to truth.
It's rare to find in situ a virtual laboratory controlled example of the endemic disease described by Justice Roberts that is isolated from contamination, as clear and clean as a three line paragraph that purph the email that I sent on the day of publication:
To the Public Editor of the Times:---------------
February 4, 2016
Yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts discussed how partisanship is eroding the public's faith in the Court reflecting principles that transcend political ideology. If this is a type of pandemic on our democracy, its valuable to find an example, especially when it's from a news organization respected for its legitimacy and dedication to truth.
It's rare to find in situ a virtual laboratory controlled example of the endemic disease described by Justice
The article contains this paragraph:
A divided 16-member panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, rejected Mr. Bell's First Amendment challenge. Judge Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, writing for the majority, said the song was “incredibly profane and vulgar” and contained “numerous spelling and grammatical errors.” “If there is to be education,” Judge Barksdale wrote, “such conduct cannot be permitted.”
The wording and context of the above paragraph strongly implies that both of the two elements of the lyrics, including "numerous spelling and grammatical errors" were aspects that were considered in deeming that the posting was not protected speech. I was surprised and shocked that spelling and grammatical errors could ever have limited first amendment protections.
On pp 3 of the PDF transcript the context was clear. Justice Barksdale's statement was appropriate, as the exact transcription of the rap lyrics was needed to evaluate aspects that could impact the case. The quoted reference to spelling and grammatical errors was in lieu of multiple uses of "sic" deemed legitimate -- as described in this explanation from the Columbia School of Journalism.
The New York Times appears to have trivialized and distorted the process of the jurists arriving at their decision. If that is the case, the reporter who was tasked with reading the entire decision appears to have done this intentionally if not being grossly incompetent.
Please get back to me on this, as I presume others have contacted you on this issue.
Regards
Given the topics that the N.Y. Times covers -- wars, revolutions, famine, disease ; their articles all fall short of perfection in squeezing complex events, sometimes breaking through the fog of war or disaster, into the allotted space on deadline.
The story described here, is nothing like those. It is a three sentence paragraph that paraphrases a legal decision that had been published months previously, that was blatantly, beyond reasonable doubt, not only wrong, but in the refusal to acknowledge this, became what I can only describe as a secular sin, a lie --not only by the writer, but the editors comprising the institution of The New York Times. Only after my initial contact with the Public Editor did I learn that the writer of this article was Professor Adam Liptak; by any measure of his expertise in law and journalism, along with the esteem of his peers, deserving the assumption of his having written a legitimate summary of the decision. He wrote to me defending, not so much the accuracy of this paraphrase, but that it captured its tone. He could have done both, but he sacrificed even a simulacrum of accuracy for conveying a tone that was invidious to the judge, that is not evident from a fair reading of the decision.
Knowing my claim had to surmount Professor Liptak's prestige, I went to considerable efforts to validate it. A stroke of luck was my connection with a person with equal legal accomplishments and prestige of the the writer, Professor Eugene Volokh, who when he read my email to the Times Public Editor, shot back his agreement, and that he planed to write about this in his column in The Washington Post. In it, he surgically dissected Liptak's summary:
I think some readers could perceive “such conduct” that “cannot be permitted” as referring to the song’s being “incredibly profane and vulgar,” and to its containing “numerous spelling and grammatical errors.” But the majority (Judge Barksdale) was arguing that what cannot be permitted is “threatening, harassing, and intimidating a teacher,” not off-campus profanity and vulgarity as such. (“At the very least, this incredibly profane and vulgar rap recording had at least four instances of threatening, harassing, and intimidating language against the two coaches: ….”)
And the reference to spelling and grammatical errors in Bell’s version of the song was even less connected to any explanation of why Bell’s conduct “cannot be permitted”:My own research, surveys and focus groups that recreated the perception of a naive reader of the Time's article,(details in my long version) showed that Volokh had been too generous in his evaluation of the degree of distortion in Mr. Liptak's summary of the decision. The misconception by the readers were not something that "could," happen, which means only possibly, but "would happen," meaning universally misleading.
This has consequences, which I explored in my long version of this report, made more severe by the century and half reputation for integrity of the N.Y. Times. Let's call this an abstract, with my invitation to those interested to go to the long version for a more detailed personal backstory and an exploration how this "infection" of a great newspaper can be staunched.
Al Rodbell
Encinitas CA
-----------------
Comprehensive Working Papers including email exchanges among all parties.
Monday, November 18, 2019
Banned from community of liberal blogers
My Dailykos.com experience / banned from my community
Dailykos is the premier liberal public website dedicated to advancing the Democratic party. It was founded in 2002, owned and controlled by lawyer-activist Markos Moulitsas, known as Kos, reflected in the eponymous website's name.
I had been a member since 2006, posting over 700 essays (called diaries) and perhaps ten times this number of comments. At times this makes for interesting dialog, however there are implied, and sometimes explicit limits on the deviation from acceptable discussions as defined by the owner. The rewards for the members are not pecuniary, but in the satisfaction of having an online community with a common political orientation. The "remuneration" is in the form of Recs, or recommendations that may elevate a diary to featured position for several days, with extensive readership and dialogue. Conversely, deviation from their prescribed extreme left political position in specific issues or on Party consensus, can result angry responses, or no comments at all, a "cold shoulder." by the community.
From the beginning I had walked that line between joining the chorus of prescribed ideology and expressing independent views that deviated from this party line. This resulted in various forms of management sanctions that were mediated by members who were given the authority to "flag" a diary or a comment. Over time cliques of members connected, so they could alert the posse to an outlier's presence, and have a comment removed and the diarist admonished.
Unbeknown to me, these admonitions did go on my "record." So, on Feb 1, of 2019 when I posted this essay- top of list, that accumulated hostile comments without rebuttal, after being called away for a few hours, when I attempted to engage in a dialog with the community, to my shock, my membership had been revoked. Knowing that I had been careful to follow the guidelines and regulations for member's participation, I sent an immediate appeal, expecting that this would be reconsidered, as Kos had said was done on occasion.
I made my case, even humbling myself by apologizing for not being more sensitive to the community's feelings, after several exchanges with staff, I was simply cut off, without any claim of not following the specified principles for members essays and comments.
Further details: formal rules of the website along with statements by users on my "career" adherence to them along with the unfairness of the banning on this are available by contacting by email at alvrdb-brt@yahoo.com
This was one of the comments on the diary that triggered my banning.
Stephen Dreyfus gramofsam1
February 04 · 01:02:19 PM
I am befuddled and mystified. I didn’t know the writer was banned, and I still don’t know why. Was it because he defended Northam? Was it because he criticized Democrats? Did he state something overtly racist that went over my head? Where is the boundary between banning inappropriate comments and diaries, and censoring ideas that are too uncomfortable to contemplate? I am guilty as charged for recommending his diary. I did so because I followed the first link to the New York Times article which I read in full, along with dozens of well-meaning and thoughtful comments from readers both black and white, some of whom were convinced he should resign, and some who weren’t so sure. (I also read an article on Nation that called for his immediate resignation.) I was simply trying to acknowledge that this diary had a thought-provoking link that was worth reading.
Update 11/16/2019
As for the content of the article that got me banned, "Gov. Ralph Northan, taking a step back," the demand that he resign has been forgotten. This article six months after his condemnation ends with
"But all three Democrats weathered the storm, defied calls to resign and are now poised to oversee the most dramatic change in state..laws in recent memory."
In the nine months since my banning from Dailykos, much has happened personally as well as in Virginia. Shortly after the banning I explored the possibility of taking legal action based on the implied contract being entered into of my providing content while Dailykos agreed that I would have perpetual presence based on my not breaching the posted rules.
I explored this with two legal scholars. The first Eugen Voloch of UCLA came to the conclusion that it would be a difficult case that he would personally not take, but that other lawyers may. I realized the difficulties, and chose not to explore it further. I accepted the principle that while my personal injury seemed unfair, the right of an individual who allows one into his home, church, or political party should not be subject to judicial review. My recourse is exactly what I am doing, which is to explore other avenues of expression such as this private website
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Email from R. Eckenhoff, Anesthesia Specialist
Eckenhoff, Roderic
To:Al Rodbell
May 28 at 5:09 AM
Hi Al.
Thank you for your note, and your interest in this area. I
am sorry to hear about your heart disease, and the need for surgery.
I presume that the less invasive TAVR approach has been ruled out.
First, I think it is a good idea to get evaluated at a local memory
clinic to get a good baseline. The combination of your age, the
procedure and existing memory decline puts you at high risk for further
decline. However, most patients improve over 30
days to 3 months back to their expected trajectory.
This is a
combination of the beneficial aspects of the surgery (better cardiac
function and brain perfusion) as well as resolution of the negative
aspects of surgery (inflammation). The anesthetic plays only
a minor role, but it is important that your anesthesiologist know of
your concerns - as there are some medications to avoid, and some that
may help.
The UCLA anesthesia dept is very well versed in these issues,
and would be my choice for you. I am sorry that
I cannot be more definitive right now - much more research is needed.
Best, Rod
Roderic G. Eckenhoff, MD
Austin Lamont Professor of Anesthesia
Department:
Anesthesiology and Critical Care
Penn Medical
Dr. Eckenhoff,
I'm a 78 year old male with severe aortic regurgitation who has had
all of the evaluations preparatory to open heart surgery to replace the
valve -- which could be done in a few weeks. Non surgical intervention
is precluded for me.
I've never had a neurological examination that included a brain
MRI, genetic or biological workup. Over the last years, my short term
memory has declined, with names of friends, addresses, etc falling away,
which I'm aware is a common problem that trouble
people to different degrees.
My concern is that this operation could be the straw that breaks my
proverbial back, meaning cellular damage to my brain that now still
allows me to function. Predicting this, before any irreversible effects
of the operation, is what I am hoping to get
advice from you, based on your research at the cutting edge.
Perhaps you have colleagues in the San Diego area, or if needed,
L.A. who could do a workup that would be predictive of the effect of the
anesthesia, perfusion and trauma of the open heart process. It could
be I have a few years survival with my now early
stage heart failure, which could be preferable to a serious immediate
cognitive decline from the operation. As of now, I have a fairly
accurate prognosis of the former, but much less on the latter.
I welcome your response
Al Rodbell
Encinitas CA
Friday, July 1, 2016
Guidelines for Morning Poinsettia Park Round Robin Tennis
Guidelines for morning Poinsettia Round Robin
The first people arrive as early as 7:30 AM, and play quietly not to disturb neighbors, and stay as long as they want; then some leave and others come later. The last set usually breaks up after 11 when the courts in the complex are almost all empty. It can take a few sessions before a new person understands the procedures which is why this guide is being provided.
There are various numbers of courts, from one to five depending on availability. When people are waiting at the top of the stairs, some courts should be relinquished. This is pretty rare, but can happen. Everyone playing with "the group" should interact. Only when there is no one waiting and after 10AM should a foursome play a full regular set, but even then if someone shows up they can decide to rotate him/her in.
It's not really that complicated, but each "set" is four standard games without switching sides (you will pick up the sequence after a set or two) but winning doesn't matter, as the person who has cycled, played all four games is then "out." "Out" means waiting for your turn if there are others, and you are at the end of the line on the benches. The active courts (including those across the walkway) let the waiting people know they finished with a loud call of "FOUR." If you are the next in line on the bench, you go to that court and you have the first position for the next set.
If there are 3, 4 or sometimes 5 courts being used, the cycles are pretty quick, a few minutes at most. If there are less than 4 people on the benches, then only the one next person goes in. If there are four or more on the bench waiting (not resting to leave), then the next two go to the court that finished their cycle and just called "FOUR." and the last two players there are "out". Those who have waited the longest get the priority position in the set.
That's the end of the introductory guidelines.
Players come and go, and at times it's not clear when someone is done for the day or just resting, so there can be some confusion at times. This group has lasted for so long, without rules or official supervision because enjoying the personal interactions really is the essential element, whether its among old timers or visitors for a week.
The first people arrive as early as 7:30 AM, and play quietly not to disturb neighbors, and stay as long as they want; then some leave and others come later. The last set usually breaks up after 11 when the courts in the complex are almost all empty. It can take a few sessions before a new person understands the procedures which is why this guide is being provided.
There are various numbers of courts, from one to five depending on availability. When people are waiting at the top of the stairs, some courts should be relinquished. This is pretty rare, but can happen. Everyone playing with "the group" should interact. Only when there is no one waiting and after 10AM should a foursome play a full regular set, but even then if someone shows up they can decide to rotate him/her in.
It's not really that complicated, but each "set" is four standard games without switching sides (you will pick up the sequence after a set or two) but winning doesn't matter, as the person who has cycled, played all four games is then "out." "Out" means waiting for your turn if there are others, and you are at the end of the line on the benches. The active courts (including those across the walkway) let the waiting people know they finished with a loud call of "FOUR." If you are the next in line on the bench, you go to that court and you have the first position for the next set.
If there are 3, 4 or sometimes 5 courts being used, the cycles are pretty quick, a few minutes at most. If there are less than 4 people on the benches, then only the one next person goes in. If there are four or more on the bench waiting (not resting to leave), then the next two go to the court that finished their cycle and just called "FOUR." and the last two players there are "out". Those who have waited the longest get the priority position in the set.
That's the end of the introductory guidelines.
Players come and go, and at times it's not clear when someone is done for the day or just resting, so there can be some confusion at times. This group has lasted for so long, without rules or official supervision because enjoying the personal interactions really is the essential element, whether its among old timers or visitors for a week.
Thursday, February 4, 2016
The virus of toxic partisanship
February 4, 2016
Yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts discussed how partisanship is eroding the public's faith in the Court reflecting principles that transcend political ideology. If this is a type of pandemic on our democracy, its valuable to find an example, especially when it's from a news organization respected for its legitimacy and dedication to truth.
It's rare to find in situ a virtual laboratory controlled example of the endemic disease described by Justice Roberts that is isolated from contamination, as clear and clean as a three line paragraph that purports to be a summary of a 33 page written appeals court decision. One came to my attention, and this essay is to tell the story as concisely as possible. I wrote a longer version that gets into why I happened to be the only one of the hundreds of thousands of readers to explore this, which was enjoyable to write, and for someone with the time, hopefully to read. This is the condensed version where the reader has to supply their own evaluation -whether it be outrage at the betrayal of trust by this news institution, or a sense of weariness of seeing another example of the defects of human institutions.
I'll start with the email that I sent on the day of publication:
Given the topics that the N.Y. Times covers -- wars, revolutions, famine, disease ; their articles all fall short of perfection in squeezing complex events, sometimes breaking through the fog of war or disaster, into the allotted space on deadline.
The story described here, is nothing like those. It is a three sentence paragraph that paraphrases a legal decision that had been published months previously, that was blatantly, beyond reasonable doubt, not only wrong, but in the refusal to acknowledge this, became what I can only describe as a secular sin, a lie --not only by the writer, but the editors comprising the institution of The New York Times. Only after my initial contact with the Public Editor did I learn that the writer of this article was Professor Adam Liptak; by any measure of his expertise in law and journalism, along with the esteem of his peers, deserving the assumption of his having written a legitimate summary of the decision. He wrote to me defending, not so much the accuracy of this paraphrase, but that it captured its tone. He could have done both, but he sacrificed even a simulacrum of accuracy for conveying a tone that was invidious to the judge, that is not evident from a fair reading of the decision.
Knowing my claim had to surmount Professor Liptak's prestige, I went to considerable efforts to validate it. A stroke of luck was my connection with a person with equal legal accomplishments and prestige of the the writer, Professor Eugene Volokh, who when he read my email to the Times Public Editor, shot back his agreement, and that he planed to write about this in his column in The Washington Post. In it, he surgically dissected Liptak's summary:
This has consequences, which I explored in my long version of this report, made more severe by the century and half reputation for integrity of the N.Y. Times. Let's call this an abstract, with my invitation to those interested to go to the long version for a more detailed personal backstory and an exploration how this "infection" of a great newspaper can be staunched.
Al Rodbell
Encinitas CA
-----------------
Comprehensive Working Papers including email exchanges among all parties.
Yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts discussed how partisanship is eroding the public's faith in the Court reflecting principles that transcend political ideology. If this is a type of pandemic on our democracy, its valuable to find an example, especially when it's from a news organization respected for its legitimacy and dedication to truth.
It's rare to find in situ a virtual laboratory controlled example of the endemic disease described by Justice Roberts that is isolated from contamination, as clear and clean as a three line paragraph that purports to be a summary of a 33 page written appeals court decision. One came to my attention, and this essay is to tell the story as concisely as possible. I wrote a longer version that gets into why I happened to be the only one of the hundreds of thousands of readers to explore this, which was enjoyable to write, and for someone with the time, hopefully to read. This is the condensed version where the reader has to supply their own evaluation -whether it be outrage at the betrayal of trust by this news institution, or a sense of weariness of seeing another example of the defects of human institutions.
I'll start with the email that I sent on the day of publication:
To the Public Editor of the Times:---------------
The article contains this paragraph:
A divided 16-member panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, rejected Mr. Bell's First Amendment challenge. Judge Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, writing for the majority, said the song was “incredibly profane and vulgar” and contained “numerous spelling and grammatical errors.” “If there is to be education,” Judge Barksdale wrote, “such conduct cannot be permitted.”
The wording and context of the above paragraph strongly implies that both of the two elements of the lyrics, including "numerous spelling and grammatical errors" were aspects that were considered in deeming that the posting was not protected speech. I was surprised and shocked that spelling and grammatical errors could ever have limited first amendment protections.
On pp 3 of the PDF transcript the context was clear. Justice Barksdale's statement was appropriate, as the exact transcription of the rap lyrics was needed to evaluate aspects that could impact the case. The quoted reference to spelling and grammatical errors was in lieu of multiple uses of "sic" deemed legitimate -- as described in this explanation from the Columbia School of Journalism.
The New York Times appears to have trivialized and distorted the process of the jurists arriving at their decision. If that is the case, the reporter who was tasked with reading the entire decision appears to have done this intentionally if not being grossly incompetent.
Please get back to me on this, as I presume others have contacted you on this issue.
Regards
Given the topics that the N.Y. Times covers -- wars, revolutions, famine, disease ; their articles all fall short of perfection in squeezing complex events, sometimes breaking through the fog of war or disaster, into the allotted space on deadline.
The story described here, is nothing like those. It is a three sentence paragraph that paraphrases a legal decision that had been published months previously, that was blatantly, beyond reasonable doubt, not only wrong, but in the refusal to acknowledge this, became what I can only describe as a secular sin, a lie --not only by the writer, but the editors comprising the institution of The New York Times. Only after my initial contact with the Public Editor did I learn that the writer of this article was Professor Adam Liptak; by any measure of his expertise in law and journalism, along with the esteem of his peers, deserving the assumption of his having written a legitimate summary of the decision. He wrote to me defending, not so much the accuracy of this paraphrase, but that it captured its tone. He could have done both, but he sacrificed even a simulacrum of accuracy for conveying a tone that was invidious to the judge, that is not evident from a fair reading of the decision.
Knowing my claim had to surmount Professor Liptak's prestige, I went to considerable efforts to validate it. A stroke of luck was my connection with a person with equal legal accomplishments and prestige of the the writer, Professor Eugene Volokh, who when he read my email to the Times Public Editor, shot back his agreement, and that he planed to write about this in his column in The Washington Post. In it, he surgically dissected Liptak's summary:
I think some readers could perceive “such conduct” that “cannot be permitted” as referring to the song’s being “incredibly profane and vulgar,” and to its containing “numerous spelling and grammatical errors.” But the majority (Judge Barksdale) was arguing that what cannot be permitted is “threatening, harassing, and intimidating a teacher,” not off-campus profanity and vulgarity as such. (“At the very least, this incredibly profane and vulgar rap recording had at least four instances of threatening, harassing, and intimidating language against the two coaches: ….”)
And the reference to spelling and grammatical errors in Bell’s version of the song was even less connected to any explanation of why Bell’s conduct “cannot be permitted”:My own research, surveys and focus groups that recreated the perception of a naive reader of the Time's article,(details in my long version) showed that Volokh had been too generous in his evaluation of the degree of distortion in Mr. Liptak's summary of the decision. The misconception by the readers were not something that "could," happen, which means only possibly, but "would happen," meaning universally misleading.
This has consequences, which I explored in my long version of this report, made more severe by the century and half reputation for integrity of the N.Y. Times. Let's call this an abstract, with my invitation to those interested to go to the long version for a more detailed personal backstory and an exploration how this "infection" of a great newspaper can be staunched.
Al Rodbell
Encinitas CA
-----------------
Comprehensive Working Papers including email exchanges among all parties.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Virus Identified at N.Y. Times
February 3, 2016 (Condensed version of this essay)
It's not Zika or Ebola; not the cyber analogy that infects systems on our own laptops up to those of the federal government; it's one that subtly comes to control those individuals who during their tenure define key institutions, in this case the flagship news and opinion leader of the most powerful country of the western world.
This is partly a personal story about a long term relationship that began close to six decades ago We connected every day, spending hours together, even though the object of my attention didn't even know that I existed, For those first decades, it was a one sided affair; they wrote, I read. Then a few decades ago I submitted my first letter to the editor, and never would have noticed it if someone hadn't mentioned seeing it weeks after it appeared. Many more were to follow, so in the era before the paper was on line, I felt like I was more than a passive consumer, but a contributor, one who was watching the store, correcting errors or putting an exclamation point on what had been printed.
Newspapers had a special meaning to me, from my visits as kid to the Library of Congress only a trolley ride away in the 1950s, where before there were microfilm copies, The Times, the Washington Post and a few other major newspapers would replace the regular newsprint rolls at the end of the run to print a hundred or so copies on rag bond paper for research libraries. I held those newspapers in my hands, now historic artifacts, like they had just arrived fresh on my doorstep, complete with breaking news that were to become the stuff of history while sharing space with the ads and comic strips.
Given the topics that the N.Y. Times covers -- wars, revolutions, famine, disease, crimes against humans and crimes against humanity; their articles all fall short of perfection in squeezing complex events, sometimes breaking through the fog of war or disaster, into a few dozen column inches of words on paper or screen- to be published on tight unrelenting deadline.
The story described here, that has grabbed me, consumed me over the last five weeks is nothing like those. It is a three sentence paragraph that paraphrases a legal decision that had been published months previously, that was blatantly, beyond reasonable doubt, not only wrong, but in the refusal to acknowledge this, became a secular sin, a lie --not only by individuals, but the institution of The New York Times. Only after my initial contact with the Public Editor did I learn that the writer of this article was Adam Liptak. By any measure of his expertise in law and journalism along with the esteem of his peers, my accusation should be dismissed out of hand, that is by any measure save the facts. On several occasions I requested that he respond personally, outside of the public eye, but after his initial explanation, he did not do so. Ignoring this issue is not an option for me, since I feel an obligation to not only those who read newspapers for current news, but those for whom it is a resource for understanding our past -- and those who will someday look to these pages to get a sense of the public's mood during that landmark election of 2016.
It turns out that I was the only person to object to this story, which makes it personal. Because of this I have to go into my own background and motivation, as this explains why those myriad "normal" readers, did not either recognize the distortion or take action if they did. I've documented all of the emails that transpired between myself and N.Y. Times officials and Professors Liptak and Volokh, at this link for those who want to take the diversion - now or later. Along with giving the texture of this story, it should satisfy the reader that the descriptive paragraph is as I claim - false, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The link is made up of three strands of evidence. First, is the article in the Washington Post, by the legal scholar, Eugene Volokh, (at above link) confirming my analysis of gross error of reporting. Second, is a short four element survey I wrote and distributed to a handful of people confirming the impression that the paragraph purportedly describing the decision was, in fact, attributed to the Judge who wrote it. (this survey may be taken by any reader) And finally, was a meeting of a dozen people in a philosophy Meetup group who responded to my narration of reading the Times article with the laughter of shared relief of tension. I see this as displacement of any impulse to act on the emerging realization of a disturbing situation punctuating by their comments of its absurdity. That response of the people in this discussion group, I contend, reflects the hundred of thousands of readers who may have chuckled at the stupid arrogance of that pompous southern judge. (these last seven words, if used to summarize the essay your are reading, shows what out of context quotes can do)
This ironic dismissal was my own first response when I read the Times paragraph over a second cup of coffee in front of my laptop, and even shook my head, as I told my wife how absurd the Judge's words were. But for my own reasons that I will get into, after reading the entire article I didn't let it go, as I had developed a habit of responding to stories from authoritative sources that didn't quite ring true. Among my friends many are conservative, some moderate but others right wing zealots, who when they get a viral email that seems to disclose a new cause for calumny against President Obama or Hillary Clinton, will just pass it on to all their contacts. Others are more selective, only sending me the ones that seem plausible.
I had an agreement with one man who sent these emails whom I had played tennis with for years, so our friendship transcended our political differences. I would analyze some of these messages, separate truth from fiction, and then he would send my analysis back to his channel of conservative friends. I found my researching these fake emails valuable on many levels. One described a woman who was a child during the 1938 Anschluss who has been giving her speech on how Hitler's changes imposed on Austria were like Obama's now. Kitty Werthmann's story is heartfelt, but distorted as I wrote in this article that after five years still gets a few hits every week. This, and the correction of an earlier Times article, gave me the feeling that investigation of distorted media articles could be worthwhile, advancing the ethic of honesty, and that accuracy was a satisfying tool to combat biased reporting that has a way of devolving into something much worse.
Reading that N.Y. Times description of the appeals court decision on my laptop had the distinct tone of one of these right wing viral emails, so I was energized to find the truth. That it turned out that the source wasn't the infamous "vast right wing conspiracy" but if anything its opposite, did take me aback, but not enough to end my digging.
While this attempt to correct a N.Y. Times article has turned confrontational, a previous one was more productive, and what I had reason to expect from this effort. It was this article of September 28, 2011, Man is Held in a Plan to Bomb Washington,, that you will note contains a correction at the end. This began (as shown in this exchange of emails) by my contacting the Public Editor who had the position at the time, and then connecting with the reporter, Abby Goodnough. After her contacting the Justice Department about their press release, and her further evaluation of the article, she finally agreed that both of the errors that I pointed out should be corrected. Her editors chose not clarify what she acknowledged was ambiguity of description of the plane, whether it was to be a hobbyist model or one of the full sized planes that had been converted to drones many decades before.
Unlike the current article, even though the decision of correction of the article did not go my way on one important issue, I had no sense of bad faith, as it was a reasonable disagreement over priorities. It is a judgement call by the top editors whether an error, of which there are many, are worthy of an appended correction -- something I accepted with the satisfaction that I had made the final N.Y. Times article a bit more accurate. The response of the Times to the current article has been strikingly different, as the error then was based on an ambiguity of a picture that the reporter didn't even know about - and once pointed out by me agreed that a correction was appropriate. This time the writer did not rely on any external intermediary reports, nor was it a breaking story with time pressure. Liptak had available for months the official document from the appeals court that included the Judge's decision, something he was trained to analyze and paraphrase. Not only this, but he taught these skills of not only legal analysis but conveying the information to the public, at Columbia University schools of law and of journalism.
At this point, I'm going to introduce my "imaginary friend," since I'm venturing into territory that could be uncomfortable to the readers and ultimately myself. The New York Times is reflexively hated by those on the right, so to do what I'm doing, describing a single incident that I claim reflects a major pathology perpetrated by this newspaper may provoke a pre-emptory rejection of my argument, with extreme prejudice against me, the writer.
O.K. Buddy, you tell them:
"If a person is offered a fact which goes against his or her beliefs, they will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, they are offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to their beliefs, it will be accepted even on the slightest evidence."
My friend's name is Bertrand Russell, and he talks to me through the medium of his collection of his epigrams. Now I'll take a step back, and put Russell's observation and the findings of modern "confirmation bias" theory in another, more generous way. "....that those who dismiss evidence not supportive of their beliefs, instincts or ideology, are not being irrational at all. Rather they see such deeply held beliefs as transcending any possible details that would challenge them."
O.K. for better or for worse, the rejection of counter ideological arguments that Bertrand Russell expresses in a few words, and social scientist now confirm in myriad books and Ph.D dissertations is not about to be negated by anything I can write. It's a real, all but universal powerful force of human affairs. Yet, I persist, as this particular bit of subtle propaganda was so crude as to only be sustained by the brute force of the power of a revered institution, The New York Times. As distasteful as I find it, I have no choice but to focus on the individual who wrote the paragraph, who subsequently denied it was in error, and then was supported in this denial by the Times Public Editor and the Editor in charge of correcting errors. This was nothing like Judy Miller's buying into the national mania over Iraq's non-existing WMD or the sad story of cub reporter Jason Blair who succumbed to the career destroying realization that creating fiction was easier than investigating and reporting facts.
Another side issue of this saga is how the eminent legal scholar Eugene Volokh who validated my observation responded to what I am calling a lie by the author. It's all in part one of this article posted in the Washington Post. He professionally dissected the central defect of Liptak's article, and then described the consequences as "......but I think that part of the column may be misleading to some readers." After taking personal umbrage at his characterization as a minor defect, I went to the effort, as described in the link to my working papers, of doing objective testing of whether he was correct that it was "some" readers, or as I claim, " virtually all readers." Volokh's phraseology implies that the "some who may be mislead" are less than assiduous in their reading and are at least partially responsible if they infer the wrong message. If this were true, then the keepers of the institution of the Times were justified in dismissing my objections. To do this I had to create a sample that captures that universe of those who saw the Time's summary f the decision for the first time, and then objectively ascertain their perception. This, and other modalities of this research are clearly defined, and subject to the peer review of those who are reading this article.
To explore this conceptually I have to shift gears away from the institution of the New York Times, to something less concrete, something that is the stuff of anecdotes but little serious analysis. Both Liptak and Volokh are brilliant legal scholars (links to Wikipedia) with Liptak having a somewhat liberal orientation and Volokh more conservative. This must be clarified, since the work of neither of these men are defined by any partisan labels that subordinate their intellectual efforts to partisan identity. Yet, both men, no matter their intellect, are responsive to the ubiquitous need for affiliation, a force applying to street gangs as well as what this event may show, a group of legal scholars of the highest intellectual level. Volokh told me that he would not divulge the nature of his conversation with Liptak, which is understandable from this affiliation model of human behavior. I attribute this as similar to the practice of "professional courtesy" which dictates that physicians are reluctant to publicly express criticism for the negligence of their fellow professionals -- that is unless they are paid expert witnesses, which can create another type of excess.
At this point a personal confession must be shared here, that for a brief moment I felt like a member of this exclusive club, with Eugene Volokh and I being colleagues in this joint venture to explore and disclose the defects in the article by Liptak. This is heady stuff, an ego boost that I parlayed into connecting with the world renowned Noam Chomsky for validation of my condemnation of Liptak's distortion. After first begging off due to other time demands, he did write a single line of support, but he could not take the time to study the difference between Liptak's summary in the N.Y. Times and what the judge had actually written. He condemned the judge's decision (which he never read), which was tantamount to condemning the words of the distorted paragraph. Among Chomsky's encyclopedic research is a book written in 1988, " Manufacturing Consent" that takes a global view of respected newspapers as conduits of power structures of society - which may provide a theoretical structure for the dynamics of this entire event including Liptaks distortion. It also provides some structure for explaining Volokh's choice, while providing accurate reporting, avoided the conclusion of his colleague's personal responsibility that follows from his analysis.
If only Liptak would acknowledge his distortion of his summary of the appeals court decision I could move on, but his not doing so personalizes the issue, perhaps too much so. It is appropriate to use the word "sin" to describe the actions of Liptak, as well as for the institution that supported him, not in the theological sense, but as an action that affects a social order that had traditionally been under the aegis of a supernatural being. What Liptak did was not a crime or a tort, but neither was it an error, so I'm stuck with "sin." His distortion was not only the sin of commission, using words written by the judge in a technical context as if they were the reason for denying first amendment protection, but of omission, as he ignored the actual reasons, which were that the rap words were threatening.
For kids who like to create rap music, for school administrators who have to strike the balance between what is too disruptive to the educational setting and fostering freedom of expression, Liptak does palpable harm. He distorted the reasoning of the decision that is now governing federal law for the states within the appeals court region and, to a degree, persuasive, if not controlling, to the entire U.S. legal system. These distorted words from the N.Y. Times, could find themselves in the Wikipedia article on this issue, a benchmark of fairness, with no evidence that they are patently false.
Liptak's sin only gets worse as I delve into it. He must know that no matter how crude his misrepresentation of the appeals judge's decision, the Judge is limited in defending himself based on judicial ethics that dictate, as was told to me by the courts media officer, that, "the decision speaks for itself." What I find more disturbing, is that he accurately gauged the passivity of the readership of the Times, except he was off by .001% which, frighteningly, is only me. This sin is made exponentially worse by that which protects him, his prestige and occupation, which happens to be based on his teaching, the transferring of his own values to students at professional schools of Columbia University (where I happened to have done graduate work in social psychology) Do any of the students have the stuff to rise up and address the issue that I am here? Let's hear what my companion Bertie Russell has to say about this:
Passive acceptance of the teacher's wisdom is easy to most students. It involves no effort of independent thought, and seems rational because the teacher knows more than his pupils; it is moreover the way to win the favor of the teacher unless the student is very exceptional.. Yet the habit of passive acceptance is a disastrous one in later life. It causes man to seek and to accept a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever is established in that position.
Liptak has probably internalized this adage, and knows that a challenge from a student is not a real possibility, that those in Journalism or Law school want nothing more than the Professor's approval, and will show contempt, maybe even swarming anger, at anyone who tries to cause him distress for anything he says.
Now in Professor Liptak's defense, it may be that his distortion, his sin is for good cause, one that may help expand the free speech rights of African Americans who use the rap music idiom to convey strong feelings of legitimate rage. This may be argued is a justification for falsely depicting the words of a Judge, one who may actually be motivated by racial bigotry -- perhaps something Liptak knows, but can't share. In his email to me he stated, "The quotation you discuss captures the judges dismissive tone, which is which I tried to convey. The opinion is, I think you will agree, shot through with that tone." Neither myself, nor Professor Volokh, nor another independent retired International Lawyer who studied this for me saw any such dismissive tone in the judges carefully argued 33 page decision. If anything, It was Liptaks own pre-existing evaluation of Judge Barksdale, that the Times readers were deceived into thinking were the words of his official court decision.
What Liptak is ignoring, and denies as this is being written, is that whatever gain he imagines his misreporting will achieve for his vision of racial comity, will exact a cost that is greater. My use of the word, "sin" is not off the mark, as that word means taking an action where the harm is to God, to an idealized being that imposes certain constraints on even trivial actions that will harm his world that he has given us. So, lying, even among we who are secular, is still a "sin" a dereliction far beyond its immediate harm, but to the principle of trust. How much greater when the lie is from something that is sanctified, whether the Catholic Church lying about their sins against children, or the cathedral that is the institution of the New York Times, whose only authority comes from its dedication to the conveyance of truth to he greatest degree that is humanly possible to its readers.
Adam Liptak is among the highest strata of intellectuals and practitioners within this secular cathedral that is a keeper of this flame. He does not get to choose what causes transcend this ethic of integrity, especially since he has other sources for conveying his values. But, while the churches of Christ, along with the rigidity of their rules, provide for redemption through confession, so too should our secular world. And so I conclude with a personal plea:
Adam, with the name of that first sinner, I beseech that you confess your own!. Tell the world, your students and your colleagues what you did, and show that you understand why it was wrong. Then, not only can you be forgiven, but your temptation and submission will provide an object lesson of how no amount of erudition and prestige can insulate from temptation. Perhaps if you tell your story, why you know your lie was deeply wrong, this will deter others with such power from taking that step you did. While the infinite challenges of our world remain, we will still retain confidence that "truth" as an ethic and a process need not be a myth reserved for suckers, a fairy tale that the shrewd and powerful use on them at will.
Or it could be that those millions who don't think like I do are right and what I call a sin isn't worth thinking about; and so everyone can just go about their business.
-
It's not Zika or Ebola; not the cyber analogy that infects systems on our own laptops up to those of the federal government; it's one that subtly comes to control those individuals who during their tenure define key institutions, in this case the flagship news and opinion leader of the most powerful country of the western world.
This is partly a personal story about a long term relationship that began close to six decades ago We connected every day, spending hours together, even though the object of my attention didn't even know that I existed, For those first decades, it was a one sided affair; they wrote, I read. Then a few decades ago I submitted my first letter to the editor, and never would have noticed it if someone hadn't mentioned seeing it weeks after it appeared. Many more were to follow, so in the era before the paper was on line, I felt like I was more than a passive consumer, but a contributor, one who was watching the store, correcting errors or putting an exclamation point on what had been printed.
Newspapers had a special meaning to me, from my visits as kid to the Library of Congress only a trolley ride away in the 1950s, where before there were microfilm copies, The Times, the Washington Post and a few other major newspapers would replace the regular newsprint rolls at the end of the run to print a hundred or so copies on rag bond paper for research libraries. I held those newspapers in my hands, now historic artifacts, like they had just arrived fresh on my doorstep, complete with breaking news that were to become the stuff of history while sharing space with the ads and comic strips.
Given the topics that the N.Y. Times covers -- wars, revolutions, famine, disease, crimes against humans and crimes against humanity; their articles all fall short of perfection in squeezing complex events, sometimes breaking through the fog of war or disaster, into a few dozen column inches of words on paper or screen- to be published on tight unrelenting deadline.
The story described here, that has grabbed me, consumed me over the last five weeks is nothing like those. It is a three sentence paragraph that paraphrases a legal decision that had been published months previously, that was blatantly, beyond reasonable doubt, not only wrong, but in the refusal to acknowledge this, became a secular sin, a lie --not only by individuals, but the institution of The New York Times. Only after my initial contact with the Public Editor did I learn that the writer of this article was Adam Liptak. By any measure of his expertise in law and journalism along with the esteem of his peers, my accusation should be dismissed out of hand, that is by any measure save the facts. On several occasions I requested that he respond personally, outside of the public eye, but after his initial explanation, he did not do so. Ignoring this issue is not an option for me, since I feel an obligation to not only those who read newspapers for current news, but those for whom it is a resource for understanding our past -- and those who will someday look to these pages to get a sense of the public's mood during that landmark election of 2016.
It turns out that I was the only person to object to this story, which makes it personal. Because of this I have to go into my own background and motivation, as this explains why those myriad "normal" readers, did not either recognize the distortion or take action if they did. I've documented all of the emails that transpired between myself and N.Y. Times officials and Professors Liptak and Volokh, at this link for those who want to take the diversion - now or later. Along with giving the texture of this story, it should satisfy the reader that the descriptive paragraph is as I claim - false, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The link is made up of three strands of evidence. First, is the article in the Washington Post, by the legal scholar, Eugene Volokh, (at above link) confirming my analysis of gross error of reporting. Second, is a short four element survey I wrote and distributed to a handful of people confirming the impression that the paragraph purportedly describing the decision was, in fact, attributed to the Judge who wrote it. (this survey may be taken by any reader) And finally, was a meeting of a dozen people in a philosophy Meetup group who responded to my narration of reading the Times article with the laughter of shared relief of tension. I see this as displacement of any impulse to act on the emerging realization of a disturbing situation punctuating by their comments of its absurdity. That response of the people in this discussion group, I contend, reflects the hundred of thousands of readers who may have chuckled at the stupid arrogance of that pompous southern judge. (these last seven words, if used to summarize the essay your are reading, shows what out of context quotes can do)
This ironic dismissal was my own first response when I read the Times paragraph over a second cup of coffee in front of my laptop, and even shook my head, as I told my wife how absurd the Judge's words were. But for my own reasons that I will get into, after reading the entire article I didn't let it go, as I had developed a habit of responding to stories from authoritative sources that didn't quite ring true. Among my friends many are conservative, some moderate but others right wing zealots, who when they get a viral email that seems to disclose a new cause for calumny against President Obama or Hillary Clinton, will just pass it on to all their contacts. Others are more selective, only sending me the ones that seem plausible.
I had an agreement with one man who sent these emails whom I had played tennis with for years, so our friendship transcended our political differences. I would analyze some of these messages, separate truth from fiction, and then he would send my analysis back to his channel of conservative friends. I found my researching these fake emails valuable on many levels. One described a woman who was a child during the 1938 Anschluss who has been giving her speech on how Hitler's changes imposed on Austria were like Obama's now. Kitty Werthmann's story is heartfelt, but distorted as I wrote in this article that after five years still gets a few hits every week. This, and the correction of an earlier Times article, gave me the feeling that investigation of distorted media articles could be worthwhile, advancing the ethic of honesty, and that accuracy was a satisfying tool to combat biased reporting that has a way of devolving into something much worse.
Reading that N.Y. Times description of the appeals court decision on my laptop had the distinct tone of one of these right wing viral emails, so I was energized to find the truth. That it turned out that the source wasn't the infamous "vast right wing conspiracy" but if anything its opposite, did take me aback, but not enough to end my digging.
While this attempt to correct a N.Y. Times article has turned confrontational, a previous one was more productive, and what I had reason to expect from this effort. It was this article of September 28, 2011, Man is Held in a Plan to Bomb Washington,, that you will note contains a correction at the end. This began (as shown in this exchange of emails) by my contacting the Public Editor who had the position at the time, and then connecting with the reporter, Abby Goodnough. After her contacting the Justice Department about their press release, and her further evaluation of the article, she finally agreed that both of the errors that I pointed out should be corrected. Her editors chose not clarify what she acknowledged was ambiguity of description of the plane, whether it was to be a hobbyist model or one of the full sized planes that had been converted to drones many decades before.
Unlike the current article, even though the decision of correction of the article did not go my way on one important issue, I had no sense of bad faith, as it was a reasonable disagreement over priorities. It is a judgement call by the top editors whether an error, of which there are many, are worthy of an appended correction -- something I accepted with the satisfaction that I had made the final N.Y. Times article a bit more accurate. The response of the Times to the current article has been strikingly different, as the error then was based on an ambiguity of a picture that the reporter didn't even know about - and once pointed out by me agreed that a correction was appropriate. This time the writer did not rely on any external intermediary reports, nor was it a breaking story with time pressure. Liptak had available for months the official document from the appeals court that included the Judge's decision, something he was trained to analyze and paraphrase. Not only this, but he taught these skills of not only legal analysis but conveying the information to the public, at Columbia University schools of law and of journalism.
At this point, I'm going to introduce my "imaginary friend," since I'm venturing into territory that could be uncomfortable to the readers and ultimately myself. The New York Times is reflexively hated by those on the right, so to do what I'm doing, describing a single incident that I claim reflects a major pathology perpetrated by this newspaper may provoke a pre-emptory rejection of my argument, with extreme prejudice against me, the writer.
O.K. Buddy, you tell them:
"If a person is offered a fact which goes against his or her beliefs, they will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, they are offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to their beliefs, it will be accepted even on the slightest evidence."
My friend's name is Bertrand Russell, and he talks to me through the medium of his collection of his epigrams. Now I'll take a step back, and put Russell's observation and the findings of modern "confirmation bias" theory in another, more generous way. "....that those who dismiss evidence not supportive of their beliefs, instincts or ideology, are not being irrational at all. Rather they see such deeply held beliefs as transcending any possible details that would challenge them."
O.K. for better or for worse, the rejection of counter ideological arguments that Bertrand Russell expresses in a few words, and social scientist now confirm in myriad books and Ph.D dissertations is not about to be negated by anything I can write. It's a real, all but universal powerful force of human affairs. Yet, I persist, as this particular bit of subtle propaganda was so crude as to only be sustained by the brute force of the power of a revered institution, The New York Times. As distasteful as I find it, I have no choice but to focus on the individual who wrote the paragraph, who subsequently denied it was in error, and then was supported in this denial by the Times Public Editor and the Editor in charge of correcting errors. This was nothing like Judy Miller's buying into the national mania over Iraq's non-existing WMD or the sad story of cub reporter Jason Blair who succumbed to the career destroying realization that creating fiction was easier than investigating and reporting facts.
Another side issue of this saga is how the eminent legal scholar Eugene Volokh who validated my observation responded to what I am calling a lie by the author. It's all in part one of this article posted in the Washington Post. He professionally dissected the central defect of Liptak's article, and then described the consequences as "......but I think that part of the column may be misleading to some readers." After taking personal umbrage at his characterization as a minor defect, I went to the effort, as described in the link to my working papers, of doing objective testing of whether he was correct that it was "some" readers, or as I claim, " virtually all readers." Volokh's phraseology implies that the "some who may be mislead" are less than assiduous in their reading and are at least partially responsible if they infer the wrong message. If this were true, then the keepers of the institution of the Times were justified in dismissing my objections. To do this I had to create a sample that captures that universe of those who saw the Time's summary f the decision for the first time, and then objectively ascertain their perception. This, and other modalities of this research are clearly defined, and subject to the peer review of those who are reading this article.
To explore this conceptually I have to shift gears away from the institution of the New York Times, to something less concrete, something that is the stuff of anecdotes but little serious analysis. Both Liptak and Volokh are brilliant legal scholars (links to Wikipedia) with Liptak having a somewhat liberal orientation and Volokh more conservative. This must be clarified, since the work of neither of these men are defined by any partisan labels that subordinate their intellectual efforts to partisan identity. Yet, both men, no matter their intellect, are responsive to the ubiquitous need for affiliation, a force applying to street gangs as well as what this event may show, a group of legal scholars of the highest intellectual level. Volokh told me that he would not divulge the nature of his conversation with Liptak, which is understandable from this affiliation model of human behavior. I attribute this as similar to the practice of "professional courtesy" which dictates that physicians are reluctant to publicly express criticism for the negligence of their fellow professionals -- that is unless they are paid expert witnesses, which can create another type of excess.
At this point a personal confession must be shared here, that for a brief moment I felt like a member of this exclusive club, with Eugene Volokh and I being colleagues in this joint venture to explore and disclose the defects in the article by Liptak. This is heady stuff, an ego boost that I parlayed into connecting with the world renowned Noam Chomsky for validation of my condemnation of Liptak's distortion. After first begging off due to other time demands, he did write a single line of support, but he could not take the time to study the difference between Liptak's summary in the N.Y. Times and what the judge had actually written. He condemned the judge's decision (which he never read), which was tantamount to condemning the words of the distorted paragraph. Among Chomsky's encyclopedic research is a book written in 1988, " Manufacturing Consent" that takes a global view of respected newspapers as conduits of power structures of society - which may provide a theoretical structure for the dynamics of this entire event including Liptaks distortion. It also provides some structure for explaining Volokh's choice, while providing accurate reporting, avoided the conclusion of his colleague's personal responsibility that follows from his analysis.
If only Liptak would acknowledge his distortion of his summary of the appeals court decision I could move on, but his not doing so personalizes the issue, perhaps too much so. It is appropriate to use the word "sin" to describe the actions of Liptak, as well as for the institution that supported him, not in the theological sense, but as an action that affects a social order that had traditionally been under the aegis of a supernatural being. What Liptak did was not a crime or a tort, but neither was it an error, so I'm stuck with "sin." His distortion was not only the sin of commission, using words written by the judge in a technical context as if they were the reason for denying first amendment protection, but of omission, as he ignored the actual reasons, which were that the rap words were threatening.
For kids who like to create rap music, for school administrators who have to strike the balance between what is too disruptive to the educational setting and fostering freedom of expression, Liptak does palpable harm. He distorted the reasoning of the decision that is now governing federal law for the states within the appeals court region and, to a degree, persuasive, if not controlling, to the entire U.S. legal system. These distorted words from the N.Y. Times, could find themselves in the Wikipedia article on this issue, a benchmark of fairness, with no evidence that they are patently false.
Liptak's sin only gets worse as I delve into it. He must know that no matter how crude his misrepresentation of the appeals judge's decision, the Judge is limited in defending himself based on judicial ethics that dictate, as was told to me by the courts media officer, that, "the decision speaks for itself." What I find more disturbing, is that he accurately gauged the passivity of the readership of the Times, except he was off by .001% which, frighteningly, is only me. This sin is made exponentially worse by that which protects him, his prestige and occupation, which happens to be based on his teaching, the transferring of his own values to students at professional schools of Columbia University (where I happened to have done graduate work in social psychology) Do any of the students have the stuff to rise up and address the issue that I am here? Let's hear what my companion Bertie Russell has to say about this:
Passive acceptance of the teacher's wisdom is easy to most students. It involves no effort of independent thought, and seems rational because the teacher knows more than his pupils; it is moreover the way to win the favor of the teacher unless the student is very exceptional.. Yet the habit of passive acceptance is a disastrous one in later life. It causes man to seek and to accept a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever is established in that position.
Liptak has probably internalized this adage, and knows that a challenge from a student is not a real possibility, that those in Journalism or Law school want nothing more than the Professor's approval, and will show contempt, maybe even swarming anger, at anyone who tries to cause him distress for anything he says.
Now in Professor Liptak's defense, it may be that his distortion, his sin is for good cause, one that may help expand the free speech rights of African Americans who use the rap music idiom to convey strong feelings of legitimate rage. This may be argued is a justification for falsely depicting the words of a Judge, one who may actually be motivated by racial bigotry -- perhaps something Liptak knows, but can't share. In his email to me he stated, "The quotation you discuss captures the judges dismissive tone, which is which I tried to convey. The opinion is, I think you will agree, shot through with that tone." Neither myself, nor Professor Volokh, nor another independent retired International Lawyer who studied this for me saw any such dismissive tone in the judges carefully argued 33 page decision. If anything, It was Liptaks own pre-existing evaluation of Judge Barksdale, that the Times readers were deceived into thinking were the words of his official court decision.
What Liptak is ignoring, and denies as this is being written, is that whatever gain he imagines his misreporting will achieve for his vision of racial comity, will exact a cost that is greater. My use of the word, "sin" is not off the mark, as that word means taking an action where the harm is to God, to an idealized being that imposes certain constraints on even trivial actions that will harm his world that he has given us. So, lying, even among we who are secular, is still a "sin" a dereliction far beyond its immediate harm, but to the principle of trust. How much greater when the lie is from something that is sanctified, whether the Catholic Church lying about their sins against children, or the cathedral that is the institution of the New York Times, whose only authority comes from its dedication to the conveyance of truth to he greatest degree that is humanly possible to its readers.
Adam Liptak is among the highest strata of intellectuals and practitioners within this secular cathedral that is a keeper of this flame. He does not get to choose what causes transcend this ethic of integrity, especially since he has other sources for conveying his values. But, while the churches of Christ, along with the rigidity of their rules, provide for redemption through confession, so too should our secular world. And so I conclude with a personal plea:
Adam, with the name of that first sinner, I beseech that you confess your own!. Tell the world, your students and your colleagues what you did, and show that you understand why it was wrong. Then, not only can you be forgiven, but your temptation and submission will provide an object lesson of how no amount of erudition and prestige can insulate from temptation. Perhaps if you tell your story, why you know your lie was deeply wrong, this will deter others with such power from taking that step you did. While the infinite challenges of our world remain, we will still retain confidence that "truth" as an ethic and a process need not be a myth reserved for suckers, a fairy tale that the shrewd and powerful use on them at will.
Or it could be that those millions who don't think like I do are right and what I call a sin isn't worth thinking about; and so everyone can just go about their business.
-
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Democracy Now uncorrected distorted stories
3/3/16Attempted to send to Democracy Now, but no email provided and form is too condensed
Please note this email was endorsed by Noam Chomsky.
Please note this email was endorsed by Noam Chomsky.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: xxxx
To: Al Rodbell
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2016 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: Mantaining the integrity of Democracy Now.
I’d suggest writing to DN directly. While we’re friends, they do not respond to suggestions of mine.
From: Al Rodbell [mailto:alvrdb-brt@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 12:21 PM
To: Noam Chomsky xxxx@xxxt.edu>
Subject: Mantaining the integrity of Democracy Now.
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 12:21 PM
To: Noam Chomsky xxxx@xxxt.edu>
Subject: Mantaining the integrity of Democracy Now.
Professor Chomsky
While
the N.Y. Times may not always pay attention to you, I would guess that
Amy Goodman does. Please look over the following and if you agree,
consider
forwarding it to her.
---------------------------
Democracy Now
Amy Goodman- Executive Producer and Anchor
Dear Amy,
Your
voice is more important now than ever, as we are closest than any time
in history to the election of a radical President. Since Donald Trump
traffics
in lies and distortions it becomes that much more vital that "Democracy Now" represents the highest standard of accuracy.
The following are reporting segments that are either biased are false.
1- Recently, you reported that a group of Black youths were removed from a Trump rally by his secret service contingent,
including some rough physical handling
in the process of ejecting them. You aired an interview with one of
those evicted who explained they had done nothing except go to the back
of the arena to view the event. I, like many of your viewers were
outraged. As it appeared that government law enforcement
entities, such as the secret service or even police could become part
of a virtual SS force by those who see Trump as taking the path of
Hitler.
Subsequent to your report, the Secret Service has officially denied that they were involved in this event, as quoted in this Wall Street Journal article,, and stated that they would only have acted
if there were a threat to the person being protected. Your story has not been corrected. For those who trust
Democracy Now for fearless disclosures, there must be confidence that what is reported has been vetted for accuracy.
(If you need further verification from the Secret Service, contact me
and I will make the effort to validate the Wall Street Journal report)
2- In reference to the Sandra Bland tragedy: When
Democracy Now does updates,
the phraseology is always tentative with words such as her "reported"
suicide." There are an array of questions of procedural derelictions
in both the arrest and incarceration phase of this tragic event.
In the Wikipedia article
that acknowledges these failures and the current legal challenges,
there is no mention of her being hanged
by other than herself as there is a preponderance of evidence to the
contrary, concluding that she did, in fact, commit suicide. The
conditional modifier of "reported" has the effect of supporting a
conspiracy theory of this being a murder; that only results in shedding
doubt on the
many important stories that only Democracy Now airs to the public.
To the degree that
Democracy Now represents truth that other venues do not publicize, a rigorous dedication to accuracy is vital in all of your reporting..
Regards
Al Rodbell
Encinitas CA 92024
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Poinsettia Morning Open Tennis (PMOT)
Sometimes the best things in life just evolve, with very little planning or official intervention. This is a story about a bunch of people, many hundreds over the course of several decades who have been getting together over doubles tennis in the city of Carlsbad California. We are there by the courtesy of the residents of this city who built the Poinsettia park over the course of several decades, the last seven of ten courts completed around 2010.
Some people have come almost every weekday morning for decades, others drop in for a few games when visiting family in the city or just passing through. Our oldest player is in his mid nineties now, and most of us make sure he doesn't have to run too far to return a shot, which he does with great precision. Others are men and women of all ages and backgrounds; in fact the wide diversity is what makes this setting work so well. Skill levels vary widely, so some games are highly competitive and others less so. One aspect of this kind of group is that some games don't provide optimum competition for the strongest players, yet the advantage is then we focus on the sociability of all participating in a type of group event.
With standard doubles tennis you get exactly four people per court, but with this group, PMOT, those on the benches can be reading a paper, watching the games, or just chatting - so they are counted as participating, which is why the recreation department allows us to take several courts for most of the morning. Of course, on the occasions when there are those who are not part of this group waiting a long time for a court, we will give up one or two, to be fair.
The first people arrive as early as 7:30 AM, and play quietly not to disturb neighbors, and stay as long as they want, and then some leave and others come later. The last set usually breaks up after 11 when the courts in the complex are almost all empty. It can take a few sessions before a new person understands the procedures which is why this guide is being provided.
It's not really that complicated, but each "set" is four standard games without switching sides (you will pick up the sequence after a set or two) but winning doesn't matter, as the person who has cycled, played all four games is then "out." "Out" means waiting for your turn if there are others, and you are at the end of the line on the benches. The active courts (including those across the walkway) let the waiting people know they finished with a loud call of "FOUR." If you are the next in line on the bench, you go to that court and you have the first position for the next set.
If there are 3, 4 or sometimes 5 courts being used, the cycles are pretty quick, a few minutes at most. If there are less than 4 people on the benches, then only the one next person goes in. If there are four or more on the bench waiting, then the next two go to the court that finished their cycle and called "FOUR." and the last two players there are "out". Those who have waited the longest get the priority position in the set.
That's the end of the introductory guidelines.
Players come and go, and at times it's not clear when someone is done for the day or just resting, so there can be some confusion at times. This group has lasted for so long, without rules or official supervision because enjoying the personal interactions really is the essential element, whether its among old timers or visitors for a week. So, these guidelines are meant to be an overview of how this works.
WELCOME TO THE GROUP
Some people have come almost every weekday morning for decades, others drop in for a few games when visiting family in the city or just passing through. Our oldest player is in his mid nineties now, and most of us make sure he doesn't have to run too far to return a shot, which he does with great precision. Others are men and women of all ages and backgrounds; in fact the wide diversity is what makes this setting work so well. Skill levels vary widely, so some games are highly competitive and others less so. One aspect of this kind of group is that some games don't provide optimum competition for the strongest players, yet the advantage is then we focus on the sociability of all participating in a type of group event.
With standard doubles tennis you get exactly four people per court, but with this group, PMOT, those on the benches can be reading a paper, watching the games, or just chatting - so they are counted as participating, which is why the recreation department allows us to take several courts for most of the morning. Of course, on the occasions when there are those who are not part of this group waiting a long time for a court, we will give up one or two, to be fair.
The first people arrive as early as 7:30 AM, and play quietly not to disturb neighbors, and stay as long as they want, and then some leave and others come later. The last set usually breaks up after 11 when the courts in the complex are almost all empty. It can take a few sessions before a new person understands the procedures which is why this guide is being provided.
It's not really that complicated, but each "set" is four standard games without switching sides (you will pick up the sequence after a set or two) but winning doesn't matter, as the person who has cycled, played all four games is then "out." "Out" means waiting for your turn if there are others, and you are at the end of the line on the benches. The active courts (including those across the walkway) let the waiting people know they finished with a loud call of "FOUR." If you are the next in line on the bench, you go to that court and you have the first position for the next set.
If there are 3, 4 or sometimes 5 courts being used, the cycles are pretty quick, a few minutes at most. If there are less than 4 people on the benches, then only the one next person goes in. If there are four or more on the bench waiting, then the next two go to the court that finished their cycle and called "FOUR." and the last two players there are "out". Those who have waited the longest get the priority position in the set.
That's the end of the introductory guidelines.
Players come and go, and at times it's not clear when someone is done for the day or just resting, so there can be some confusion at times. This group has lasted for so long, without rules or official supervision because enjoying the personal interactions really is the essential element, whether its among old timers or visitors for a week. So, these guidelines are meant to be an overview of how this works.
WELCOME TO THE GROUP
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Myth of Mental Illness - the Explosion
New Atlantic excerpts article on Thomas Szasz --Myth of Mental Illness
“Any intelligent child would have known that. Of course, such simple-minded clarity had to be educated out of people to make them normal members of society, especially American society.” Szasz studied both Freud and his critics, but he was especially taken with a prominent Hungarian writer named Frigyes Karinthy. In one particular short story, Karinthy included the following dialogue between two psychiatrists, one of which is having a delusion of insanity:
“Any intelligent child would have known that. Of course, such simple-minded clarity had to be educated out of people to make them normal members of society, especially American society.” Szasz studied both Freud and his critics, but he was especially taken with a prominent Hungarian writer named Frigyes Karinthy. In one particular short story, Karinthy included the following dialogue between two psychiatrists, one of which is having a delusion of insanity:
Psychiatrist: So, am I insane?In 1956, Szasz accepted a post at SUNY-Syracuse.
Colleague: Well, since you have a delusion, evidently you are.
Psychiatrist: Oh, no, there you go again! Now you say that if I have a delusion, I am insane. But you just said that I am insane. In that case, my belief is not a delusion, but a correct idea. Therefore I have no delusion. Therefore I am not, after all, insane. It is only a delusion that I am insane; hence I have a delusion; hence I am insane; hence I am right; hence I am not insane. Isn’t psychiatry a magnificent science?
Colleague: The most magnificent, my dearest colleague! But of course it’s necessary to master it as well as only you or I have.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Some Movement by Recreation Dept on Poinsettia Court Management
This article I wrote that appeared in the North County Times Oct 27 provides some background for those unfamiliar to this issue:
Right after submitting this OpEd I wrote this letter to the city manager, since there had been no substantive response to the many letters sent to Sue Spickard, the Recreation Department Director. I was happily surprised to get this letter from Sue, prompted by my letter to the city manager.
Previous to this letter, the Recreation Department's position was that the only opportunity that we would have to express any new ideas, or objections to giving the management contract to a private entity would be when it was presented to the City Council for approval of the contract. This has been expanded to presenting this issue to the Recreation Commission for discussion and holding an open meeting.
Whether or not this represents genuine openness to an alternative approach, it does present an opportunity for a coordinated response to what had been described as a done deal. This puts the ball in the court of the users who feel that a user-volunteer group is preferable to a private operator. The other issue is whether any new system is necessary, or whether during this time of economic hardship for many, the status quo, free open courts is a better option. But this is a decision that has to be made by the elected city council of Carlsbad, who have been expecting funding for a new court and clubhouse, or even if that is postponed, the expense of ongoing maintenance and repair of the courts to be paid by users.
I suggest anyone interested contact the City Clerk’s Office (760) 434-2808, email clerk@carlsbadca.gov to be put on the list for notification of the promised meetings. And for anyone who has the time and interest in active participating in a Volunteer-User group I can be reached at alvrdb-brt@yahoo.com, or leave a comment here to be shared with others.
Poinsettia Tennis Courts, Recreation or Tennis Factory
When seven new courts were added to poinsettia park complex last year, it was part of a master plan going back almost three decades. The Parks and Recreation department of the city held an open meeting where players from the courts discussed how it should be managed. There are three general options:
A: a free facility run by the city open to all. This is the current arrangement at these courts and that of Kit Carson courts in Escondido. It is the ideal when there are generally available courts sufficient to demand, as it allows the most regional use. The ongoing maintenance, which is quite low for unmanned courts, are paid by general city revenues.
B: User-volunteer organization, that charges a fee from $100 to $250 a year, with nominal single use fees. This depends on volunteers for the board that allocates court usage, with the city's approval. The organization can become a virtual social club sponsoring special events that bring the community together.
C: Private, for profit, management company. Such organizations are common for Golf clubs where there is a pro-shop, restaurant and lessons that do not use the same facilities as the links. Such private management is rare for tennis courts of this scale, for good reasons. The resources that provide them with their profit, the courts, are the same that are used by recreational players.
When the open meeting to discuss these options was held, the economy was flying high, so B: the user-volunteer option, was discussed in depth; the couple hundred dollars or so annual membership fee was not seen as unreasonable. Now with the highest unemployment rate in decades, even a small fee will shut out people who are now using the courts.
Among those who are now playing on these courts, at least one group of twenty mostly older players who have been together for a couple of decades, but still welcome anyone to join them every morning, could lose their courts. They certainly will if they can't afford the fee, which will have to cover not only profit for the company, but additional capital expansion.
Somehow, unbeknownst to present users of the court and at least one member of the city council, the Recreation department chose option C, and have now entered into exclusive negotiations with one private company for a long term contract to manage the court. In spite of lack of public discussion of the merits, the serious disadvantages of this choice, they are proceeding ahead, even after the disclosure of this three weeks ago brought a deluge of objections.
Demands for a meeting to discuss the direction the city has taken have being ignored. It seems they have circled the wagons, and only a concerted effort by current, and prospective users, can bring a reasoned discussion of the future of this great facility.
Al Rodbell
alvrdb-brt@yahoo.com
Right after submitting this OpEd I wrote this letter to the city manager, since there had been no substantive response to the many letters sent to Sue Spickard, the Recreation Department Director. I was happily surprised to get this letter from Sue, prompted by my letter to the city manager.
Dear Al,
The City Manager received your email and has asked that I respond.
As I am sure you are aware, we have received quite a bit of correspondence regarding the management of tennis at Poinsettia Park. I assure you that the comments are not being taken lightly. We too, want the best for the park and those that enjoy playing tennis at that location.
You are correct, we are in preliminary negotiations with one potential contractor, and we are making every effort to address as many concerns that have been raised as possible. Our goal is to provide a balanced tennis program so that all can enjoy the complex. Yes, there will be fees, however, we feel strongly that beginners and those who just enjoy casually playing tennis will be able to do that at an affordable rate.
The City Council directed staff to pursue this partnership, and we will continue to do that. If negotiations are successful and a contract is agreed upon, there will be opportunities for the public to be heard before the City Council makes the final decision. The item will be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission before it is brought to the City Council. We are also planning to hold another open meeting with all who are interested to share what exactly is being proposed. As to the dates and times of those meetings, unfortunately, I don’t know at this time. However, we will be in contact with you and others to let you know when the meetings are scheduled. Again, I encourage you to contact the City Clerk’s Office (760) 434-2808, so that you may be notified of any public meetings relating to tennis.
Regards,
Sue
Previous to this letter, the Recreation Department's position was that the only opportunity that we would have to express any new ideas, or objections to giving the management contract to a private entity would be when it was presented to the City Council for approval of the contract. This has been expanded to presenting this issue to the Recreation Commission for discussion and holding an open meeting.
Whether or not this represents genuine openness to an alternative approach, it does present an opportunity for a coordinated response to what had been described as a done deal. This puts the ball in the court of the users who feel that a user-volunteer group is preferable to a private operator. The other issue is whether any new system is necessary, or whether during this time of economic hardship for many, the status quo, free open courts is a better option. But this is a decision that has to be made by the elected city council of Carlsbad, who have been expecting funding for a new court and clubhouse, or even if that is postponed, the expense of ongoing maintenance and repair of the courts to be paid by users.
I suggest anyone interested contact the City Clerk’s Office (760) 434-2808, email clerk@carlsbadca.gov to be put on the list for notification of the promised meetings. And for anyone who has the time and interest in active participating in a Volunteer-User group I can be reached at alvrdb-brt@yahoo.com, or leave a comment here to be shared with others.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Letter to City Manager
October 26, 2009
Lisa Hildebrand
City manager, Carlsbad CA
Dear Ms Hildeband
One thing that distinguishes Carlsbad from other cities is the many ways that citizen participation is fostered, much more than the minimum required by law. It is a soft asset, one that doesn't show up in measurable criteria, but one of the things that makes the city a more attractive place to live.
I was living in Carlsbad when I walked into Mark Streyaert;s office about five years ago seeking more tennis facilities, and he rolled out the master plan for Poinsettia park, with eleven gorgeous tennis courts. I spoke before the Recreation Commission and lobbied each member of the city council to get a commitment to build them. And sure enough, when the Golf course was funded so were seven new courts.
Even before the courts were built Mark and the other Recreation executives held a meeting for suggestions about organizing the courts. And then about a year ago there was an open house, perhaps two hundred people, all offering suggestions on how to meet the needs of various stakeholders-----existing players, youth development, city revenue and others.
With this preface let me insert part of an oped that I have just submitted, that conveys the disconnect, the breach of trust, in my opinion, between those citizen users who felt they were responsible participants in this process and the Recreation department. First I describe the three broad categories of management choices:
----------
A: a free facility run by the city open to all. This is the current arrangement at these courts and that of Kit Carson courts in Escondido. It is the ideal when there are generally available courts sufficient to demand, as it allows the most regional use. The ongoing maintenance, which is quite low for unmanned courts, are paid by general city revenues.
B: User-volunteer organization, that charges a fee from $100 to $250 a year, with nominal single use fees. This depends on volunteers for the board that allocates court usage, with the city's approval. The organization can become a virtual social club sponsoring special events that bring the community together.
C: Private, for profit, management company. Such organizations are common for Golf clubs where there is a pro-shop, restaurant and lessons that do not use the same facilities as the links. Such private management is rare for tennis courts of this scale, for good reasons. The resources that provide them with their profit, the courts, are the same that are used by recreational players.
Things have changed since the open meeting of users.
When the open meeting to discuss these options was held, the economy was flying high, so B: the user-volunteer option, was discussed in depth; the couple hundred dollars or so annual membership fee was not seen as unreasonable. Now with the highest unemployment rate in decades, even a small fee will shut out people who are now using the courts.
Among those who are now playing on these courts, at least one group of twenty mostly older players who have been together for a couple of decades, but still welcome anyone to join them every morning, could lose their courts. They certainly will if they can't afford the fee, which will have to cover not only profit for the company, but additional capital expansion.
Next is what I consider inconsistent with the spirit of citizen participation that defines Carlsbad. Sue Spickard sent a letter to all of those who objected to this, personalized so those who didn't actually read it felt their objections were being addressed. But they were not.
She said that the negotiations with i-tennis are "in early stages" which implies uncertainty of outcome, but actually means an agreement in principle with details to be worked out. Yes, the city council will have to approve the contract, but to the best of my knowledge they never approved Option C, and certainly the hundreds of people who went to meetings had no idea this had been decided.
Somehow, unbeknown to present users of the court and at least one member of the city council, the Recreation department chose option C, and have now entered into exclusive negotiations with one private company for a long term contract to manage the court. In spite of lack of public discussion of the merits, the serious disadvantages of this choice, they are proceeding ahead, even after the disclosure of this three weeks ago brought a deluge of objections.
Demands for a meeting to discuss the direction the city has taken have being ignored. It seems they have circled the wagons, and only a concerted effort by current, and prospective users, can bring a reasoned discussion of the future of this great facility.
-----------------------
I'm asking you to intervene, as according to the organizational chart you have authority over the Parks and Recreation department. I suggest that you un-circle the wagons, that you explain to the Recreation department that users, and citizens, have reason to be upset, and even angry about the process of deciding management choices of these courts.
These courts mean a lot to many people. They are a success exactly as they are, which says much about the city government and the people who use the courts. It is appropriate to take a step back, to have an open discussion of which option is best A, B or C and then go on from there.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Al Rodbell
Lisa Hildebrand
City manager, Carlsbad CA
Dear Ms Hildeband
One thing that distinguishes Carlsbad from other cities is the many ways that citizen participation is fostered, much more than the minimum required by law. It is a soft asset, one that doesn't show up in measurable criteria, but one of the things that makes the city a more attractive place to live.
I was living in Carlsbad when I walked into Mark Streyaert;s office about five years ago seeking more tennis facilities, and he rolled out the master plan for Poinsettia park, with eleven gorgeous tennis courts. I spoke before the Recreation Commission and lobbied each member of the city council to get a commitment to build them. And sure enough, when the Golf course was funded so were seven new courts.
Even before the courts were built Mark and the other Recreation executives held a meeting for suggestions about organizing the courts. And then about a year ago there was an open house, perhaps two hundred people, all offering suggestions on how to meet the needs of various stakeholders-----existing players, youth development, city revenue and others.
With this preface let me insert part of an oped that I have just submitted, that conveys the disconnect, the breach of trust, in my opinion, between those citizen users who felt they were responsible participants in this process and the Recreation department. First I describe the three broad categories of management choices:
----------
A: a free facility run by the city open to all. This is the current arrangement at these courts and that of Kit Carson courts in Escondido. It is the ideal when there are generally available courts sufficient to demand, as it allows the most regional use. The ongoing maintenance, which is quite low for unmanned courts, are paid by general city revenues.
B: User-volunteer organization, that charges a fee from $100 to $250 a year, with nominal single use fees. This depends on volunteers for the board that allocates court usage, with the city's approval. The organization can become a virtual social club sponsoring special events that bring the community together.
C: Private, for profit, management company. Such organizations are common for Golf clubs where there is a pro-shop, restaurant and lessons that do not use the same facilities as the links. Such private management is rare for tennis courts of this scale, for good reasons. The resources that provide them with their profit, the courts, are the same that are used by recreational players.
Things have changed since the open meeting of users.
When the open meeting to discuss these options was held, the economy was flying high, so B: the user-volunteer option, was discussed in depth; the couple hundred dollars or so annual membership fee was not seen as unreasonable. Now with the highest unemployment rate in decades, even a small fee will shut out people who are now using the courts.
Among those who are now playing on these courts, at least one group of twenty mostly older players who have been together for a couple of decades, but still welcome anyone to join them every morning, could lose their courts. They certainly will if they can't afford the fee, which will have to cover not only profit for the company, but additional capital expansion.
Next is what I consider inconsistent with the spirit of citizen participation that defines Carlsbad. Sue Spickard sent a letter to all of those who objected to this, personalized so those who didn't actually read it felt their objections were being addressed. But they were not.
She said that the negotiations with i-tennis are "in early stages" which implies uncertainty of outcome, but actually means an agreement in principle with details to be worked out. Yes, the city council will have to approve the contract, but to the best of my knowledge they never approved Option C, and certainly the hundreds of people who went to meetings had no idea this had been decided.
Somehow, unbeknown to present users of the court and at least one member of the city council, the Recreation department chose option C, and have now entered into exclusive negotiations with one private company for a long term contract to manage the court. In spite of lack of public discussion of the merits, the serious disadvantages of this choice, they are proceeding ahead, even after the disclosure of this three weeks ago brought a deluge of objections.
Demands for a meeting to discuss the direction the city has taken have being ignored. It seems they have circled the wagons, and only a concerted effort by current, and prospective users, can bring a reasoned discussion of the future of this great facility.
-----------------------
I'm asking you to intervene, as according to the organizational chart you have authority over the Parks and Recreation department. I suggest that you un-circle the wagons, that you explain to the Recreation department that users, and citizens, have reason to be upset, and even angry about the process of deciding management choices of these courts.
These courts mean a lot to many people. They are a success exactly as they are, which says much about the city government and the people who use the courts. It is appropriate to take a step back, to have an open discussion of which option is best A, B or C and then go on from there.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Al Rodbell
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Column that broke this story....
.....was by Logan Jenkins in this article from the Union Tribune October 4, with this being the money quote:
Neither the Recreation Department or the City Council will answer this question, so we have to take action to demand that they do so.
Verify all the following dates and times:
Email to reach each member of Carlsbad City Council (next meeting Nov. 17th 6:00) Each person can speak for 3 minutes (we should coordinate) council@carlsbadca.gov
Parks and Recreation Commission meeting Nov 16, 5:30
Parks and Recreation Services Manager, Sue Spickard, sue.spickard@carlsbadca.gov
The bottom-line question the City Council must answer is how iTennis plans to generate enough revenue to pay for the construction of a clubhouse and stadium court. How do you do that without becoming a de facto lesson factory and/or charging high fees to play?
Neither the Recreation Department or the City Council will answer this question, so we have to take action to demand that they do so.
Verify all the following dates and times:
Email to reach each member of Carlsbad City Council (next meeting Nov. 17th 6:00) Each person can speak for 3 minutes (we should coordinate) council@carlsbadca.gov
Parks and Recreation Commission meeting Nov 16, 5:30
Parks and Recreation Services Manager, Sue Spickard, sue.spickard@carlsbadca.gov
Privatization of Carlsbad's Poinsettia Park
Carlsbad Poinsettia Tennis Courts: Recreation or “lesson factory.”
as printed in N.C Times Community Forum, 10/27/09
By AL RODBELL -
When seven new tennis courts were added to the Poinsettia Park complex last year, it was part of a master plan going back almost three decades. The Carlsbad Parks and Recreation department held an open meeting where players from the courts discussed how they should be managed.
There are three general options:
A. A free facility run by the city open to all. This is the current arrangement at these courts and those at the Kit Carson Park courts in Escondido. It is the ideal when there are generally available courts sufficient to meet demand as it allows the most regional use. The ongoing maintenance, which is quite low for unmanned courts, is paid by general city revenues.
B: User-volunteer organization that charges a fee from $100 to $250 a year, with nominal single-use fees. This depends on volunteers for the board that allocates court usage, with the city's approval. The organization can become a virtual social club, sponsoring special events that bring the community together.
C: Private, for-profit, management company. Such organizations are common for golf clubs, where there is a pro shop, restaurant and lessons that do not use the same facilities as the links. Such private management is rare for tennis courts of this scale, for good reasons. The resources that provide them with their profit, the courts, are the same that are used by recreational players.
When the open meeting to discuss these options was held, the economy was flying high, so "B: the user-volunteer option," was discussed in depth; the couple of hundred dollars or so annual membership fee was not seen as unreasonable. Now with the highest unemployment rate in decades, even a small fee will shut out people who are now using the courts.
Among those who are now playing on these courts, at least one group of 20 mostly older players who have been together for a couple of decades, but still welcome anyone to join them every morning, could lose their courts. They certainly will if they can't afford the fee, which will have to cover not only profit for the company, but additional capital expansion.
Somehow, unbeknown to present users of the court and at least one member of the City Council, the recreation department chose option C, and have now entered into exclusive negotiations with one private company for a long-term contract to manage the court. In spite of lack of public discussion of the merits and the serious disadvantages of this choice, they are proceeding ahead, even after the disclosure of this three weeks ago brought a deluge of objections.
Demands for a meeting to discuss the direction the city has taken have been ignored. It seems they have circled the wagons, and only a concerted effort by current and prospective users can bring a reasoned discussion of the future of this great facility.
Al Rodbell can be contacted at alvrdb-brt@yahoo.com.
as printed in N.C Times Community Forum, 10/27/09
By AL RODBELL -
When seven new tennis courts were added to the Poinsettia Park complex last year, it was part of a master plan going back almost three decades. The Carlsbad Parks and Recreation department held an open meeting where players from the courts discussed how they should be managed.
There are three general options:
A. A free facility run by the city open to all. This is the current arrangement at these courts and those at the Kit Carson Park courts in Escondido. It is the ideal when there are generally available courts sufficient to meet demand as it allows the most regional use. The ongoing maintenance, which is quite low for unmanned courts, is paid by general city revenues.
B: User-volunteer organization that charges a fee from $100 to $250 a year, with nominal single-use fees. This depends on volunteers for the board that allocates court usage, with the city's approval. The organization can become a virtual social club, sponsoring special events that bring the community together.
C: Private, for-profit, management company. Such organizations are common for golf clubs, where there is a pro shop, restaurant and lessons that do not use the same facilities as the links. Such private management is rare for tennis courts of this scale, for good reasons. The resources that provide them with their profit, the courts, are the same that are used by recreational players.
When the open meeting to discuss these options was held, the economy was flying high, so "B: the user-volunteer option," was discussed in depth; the couple of hundred dollars or so annual membership fee was not seen as unreasonable. Now with the highest unemployment rate in decades, even a small fee will shut out people who are now using the courts.
Among those who are now playing on these courts, at least one group of 20 mostly older players who have been together for a couple of decades, but still welcome anyone to join them every morning, could lose their courts. They certainly will if they can't afford the fee, which will have to cover not only profit for the company, but additional capital expansion.
Somehow, unbeknown to present users of the court and at least one member of the City Council, the recreation department chose option C, and have now entered into exclusive negotiations with one private company for a long-term contract to manage the court. In spite of lack of public discussion of the merits and the serious disadvantages of this choice, they are proceeding ahead, even after the disclosure of this three weeks ago brought a deluge of objections.
Demands for a meeting to discuss the direction the city has taken have been ignored. It seems they have circled the wagons, and only a concerted effort by current and prospective users can bring a reasoned discussion of the future of this great facility.
Al Rodbell can be contacted at alvrdb-brt@yahoo.com.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
How I became envolved in this issue
While this essay is specific to the Courts at Poinsettia Park in Carlsbad California, as described in this column by Logan Jenkins on October 4, 2009, it touches on many wider questions of social policy. I suggest you read Jenkins' column for background and then continue back here.
When the YMCA closed their courts several years ago, the following was printed as an OpEd, which was the opening statement of my unanticipated role as a "Tennis Political Activist."
After the OpEd was published, I visited the Recreation Department of Carlsbad, where we were then living. It was a happy surprise when the director of park development showed me the master plan of Poinsettia Park with 11 courts and a sizable clubhouse. The problem was that it was a bit dusty, already a couple of decades old, with no public demand to build more than the three courts that were already there.
I made my case to the members of the city council, spoke at the Parks and Recreation Commission, and got a commitment from each council candidate to build the rest of the courts (campaign promises are easily elicited); but low and behold, when the massive appropriation for the new golf course was voted on, they also funded the seven new courts I had been pushing. So, it was with great pride that I, along with several other people who independently had been promoting the same agenda, attended early meetings on the organization of the courts.
I was disturbed a few weeks ago that my suggestion, and the consensus of a public meeting, for some form of an organization described in my OpEd had been changed, under the public's radar, to what was described as a "done deal" with a private tennis management company, and a long term one at that. I contacted Jenkins, with the article linked above the result. Another effect of Jenkins' shinning the light of the press on this negotiation is that we have gained time to see if the idea that I, and the audience at the public meeting supported, is a doable preferable option.
Now comes the difficult part. In this age of public cynicism, will we find the critical mass of individuals who can come together to form the user based non profit organization that can satisfy all of the varied needs and desires of various parties? It's a tough challenge, to bring together people with ideas of their own, yet who are willing to remain part of a coherent organizing association even if their own specific plans are not accepted.
The user based non profit organization faces these challenges that commercial entities overcome with the profit motive, which provides the common incentive of the old "bottom line," the potential financial gain that displaces ego needs. This profit based enterprise model shouldn't be dismissed, as it has provided many good things in our world---along with some pretty awful things---but that's a discussion for another day.
Contact me alvrdb-brt@yahoo.com for more information, or if interested in the organizational process.
Al Rodbell
When the YMCA closed their courts several years ago, the following was printed as an OpEd, which was the opening statement of my unanticipated role as a "Tennis Political Activist."
Excerpts of OpEd article in San Diego Union Tribune 2/6/03
Regional Tennis Center (full article here)
There are plenty of courts in the area; some in exclusive private clubs, others scattered in public parks and private residential communities. What is missing is a public tennis center like those in LaJolla and Balboa Park. These were built on city land with city funds, but now operate at no further cost to the public. Each has a tennis association, open to all at moderate cost, that pays for all maintenance and runs the programming. And what programming they have. Tournaments for all levels and age groups up to 90 year olds, (where just showing up gets you a medal) leagues, mixers and clinics. Pee Wee and junior classes along side of senior games. Balboa even has a special challenge court, no reservation needed, just pop in and play.
The key to the success of these centers is the concentration of courts in one location. There is a minimum number, around ten, that is required to produce special events while maintaining regular weekly programs. With this activity level, facilities such as rest rooms, food stands and pro shop become self sustaining. In Manhattan, one such tennis association has fund raisers featuring top tennis pros and world class entertainers. People are eager to volunteer their services and join the association.
This type of public-private facility has been successful across the country. More than just an amenity, it becomes an attraction that adds luster to its surroundings. Our unique strip of sun kissed paradise deserves nothing less.
Al Rodbell
alvrdb-brt@yahoo.com
After the OpEd was published, I visited the Recreation Department of Carlsbad, where we were then living. It was a happy surprise when the director of park development showed me the master plan of Poinsettia Park with 11 courts and a sizable clubhouse. The problem was that it was a bit dusty, already a couple of decades old, with no public demand to build more than the three courts that were already there.
I made my case to the members of the city council, spoke at the Parks and Recreation Commission, and got a commitment from each council candidate to build the rest of the courts (campaign promises are easily elicited); but low and behold, when the massive appropriation for the new golf course was voted on, they also funded the seven new courts I had been pushing. So, it was with great pride that I, along with several other people who independently had been promoting the same agenda, attended early meetings on the organization of the courts.
I was disturbed a few weeks ago that my suggestion, and the consensus of a public meeting, for some form of an organization described in my OpEd had been changed, under the public's radar, to what was described as a "done deal" with a private tennis management company, and a long term one at that. I contacted Jenkins, with the article linked above the result. Another effect of Jenkins' shinning the light of the press on this negotiation is that we have gained time to see if the idea that I, and the audience at the public meeting supported, is a doable preferable option.
Now comes the difficult part. In this age of public cynicism, will we find the critical mass of individuals who can come together to form the user based non profit organization that can satisfy all of the varied needs and desires of various parties? It's a tough challenge, to bring together people with ideas of their own, yet who are willing to remain part of a coherent organizing association even if their own specific plans are not accepted.
The user based non profit organization faces these challenges that commercial entities overcome with the profit motive, which provides the common incentive of the old "bottom line," the potential financial gain that displaces ego needs. This profit based enterprise model shouldn't be dismissed, as it has provided many good things in our world---along with some pretty awful things---but that's a discussion for another day.
Contact me alvrdb-brt@yahoo.com for more information, or if interested in the organizational process.
Al Rodbell
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Responses to this website
(Recieved this on January 5, 2011 from someone who googled "privatization of public tennis courts")
Dear Al,
We had a similar situation in Miami Beach. Before 2002, our two public clay tennis facilities were managed by the city. Now operations are handled by a private company that keeps all revenue (membership fees, lessons, clinics, stringing, food). The operator pays the city rent every month.
Pros: We have a famous name (Bollitieri) running the joint which adds to the facilities's prestige, quality lessons and clinics. Lots and lots of childrens' programs for under 10 years old.
Cons: The operator is responsible for court maintenance and janitorial services so the less he spends (on clay material, or toilet paper) the more money in his pocket. The operator enjoys a monopoly, therefore no incentive to improve. The operators attitude can be very nasty and they don't care because they are the boss and there is no one we can complain too. The operator creates tennis programs that bring in the most profit for him, not the most enjoyment for the residents. Prices for pro shop beverages , private lessons, and usage fees keep rising faster then the city run sport activities. For example, the park's heated pool is run by the city and it is free.
I am concerned that the city choose the tennis operator without sending it out to bid. Miami Beach had 5 bidding companies. Also the tennis players should have been on the evaluation committee to choose the management company. In Miami Beach there are 4 residents and 3 city employees who interview, evaluate, and vote on best bid. The winning bid is then brought to the commissions as a recommendation, then the commissioners vote to choose.
The tennis community was very unset with the maintenance of our courts, we complained to city officials who ignored us. So we organized ourselves, formed an association and now elected officials and city administrators listen to our group. We send lots of emails and 40 of us show up as a group to commission meetings.
If you need advise or want to bounce ideas off me don't hesitate to contact me.
Kind Regards,
Gayle Durham
Miami Beach Tennis Players Association (www.MBTPA.net)
Cell 201-315-5363
gayle@cfsystems.com
1455 West Ave., #804, Miami Beach, FL 33139
Dear Al,
We had a similar situation in Miami Beach. Before 2002, our two public clay tennis facilities were managed by the city. Now operations are handled by a private company that keeps all revenue (membership fees, lessons, clinics, stringing, food). The operator pays the city rent every month.
Pros: We have a famous name (Bollitieri) running the joint which adds to the facilities's prestige, quality lessons and clinics. Lots and lots of childrens' programs for under 10 years old.
Cons: The operator is responsible for court maintenance and janitorial services so the less he spends (on clay material, or toilet paper) the more money in his pocket. The operator enjoys a monopoly, therefore no incentive to improve. The operators attitude can be very nasty and they don't care because they are the boss and there is no one we can complain too. The operator creates tennis programs that bring in the most profit for him, not the most enjoyment for the residents. Prices for pro shop beverages , private lessons, and usage fees keep rising faster then the city run sport activities. For example, the park's heated pool is run by the city and it is free.
I am concerned that the city choose the tennis operator without sending it out to bid. Miami Beach had 5 bidding companies. Also the tennis players should have been on the evaluation committee to choose the management company. In Miami Beach there are 4 residents and 3 city employees who interview, evaluate, and vote on best bid. The winning bid is then brought to the commissions as a recommendation, then the commissioners vote to choose.
The tennis community was very unset with the maintenance of our courts, we complained to city officials who ignored us. So we organized ourselves, formed an association and now elected officials and city administrators listen to our group. We send lots of emails and 40 of us show up as a group to commission meetings.
If you need advise or want to bounce ideas off me don't hesitate to contact me.
Kind Regards,
Gayle Durham
Miami Beach Tennis Players Association (www.MBTPA.net)
Cell 201-315-5363
gayle@cfsystems.com
1455 West Ave., #804, Miami Beach, FL 33139
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)