Amen
Hat tip Why Evolution is True
So, no rock legends died this week, but chance has come to my rescue. I’ve got my iPod connected to my car stereo system, and my choice of music is pretty much dictated by randomly spinning the selection wheel on the stereo. It’s an uncertain process, since I also have to keep an eye on the road, and the ultimate selection, while not exactly totally random, is close enough. Anyway, a couple of days who should appear on the little LED screen but the Allman Brothers, who I promptly chose and realized straightaway that I’ve never put them up, or at least I can’t remember having done so, which is the same thing.
This is an instrumental, Jessica. Great guitar work, of course.
I actually thought about putting up something on Esther Williams, who died yesterday. I decided against it, but I do recommend perusing some of the stuff on youtube. She was actually a little before my time, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen any of her water routines before. She had a lot of guts. I was a swimmer myself, though not very good (terrible, actually), but you couldn’t get me or most of the swimmers I knew to do a swan dive off a high diving board. Even the diver on my college team, who was an excellent diver on the one meter, was a little gun shy on the high board. According to the Times obit, she literally broke her back diving off a 50 foot platform because the idiots making the movie she was in put a metal crown on her head that caused it to snap back when she hit the water. Oh, what the heck, this is as far from the Allman Brothers as you can get, but check this out.
Why am I not surprised that the NSA is monitoring our phone calls?
Why am I not surprised that this intrusion into our private lives is the one issue in which the cherished goal of “bi-partisanship” has been reached, for Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike seem to think it’s great.
The real question is: why does anyone find this surprising?
David Cay Johnston, Pulitzer Prize winner and former New York Times reporter on economic issues, analyzes a recent study of wealth among five nations among those with the richest economies and concludes: “In short, what the paper shows is this: Inequality is a product of government policy.”
And yes, this post’s title is apt, or apt enough, for “redundancy” besides meaning the “state of being redundant”, also means, “Something redundant or excessive; a superfluity”, and surely the study is superfluous, or it is if all it shows is that inequality is a product of government policy.
As Hamlet’s buddy Horatio, might have said: “There needs no study, come from a think tank, my lord, to tell us this.”
But of course, I jest. We don’t really need a study, but in today’s world, the nose on your face, may it be ever so plain, doesn’t really exist unless it is confirmed by a study.
This post is only tangentially related to politics, though the story is emblematic of our culture. I found out about it because my wife and I subscribe to the Boston Globe, for it’s a local Boston story. We were particularly interested because our son currently has a fellowship at the Academy of Arts and Sciences, where the story takes place.
If, like us before he got the fellowship, you have never heard of the Academy of Arts and Sciences, let me enlighten you. It is, as the Globe reports, a prestigious institution, founded by John Adams, John Hancock and their ilk while the American Revolution raged around them. They felt Boston deserved an institution that could compete head to head with Benjamin Franklin’s Philadelphia based American Philosophical Society. But this story is not about our patriotic forbears, for it is very much a modern fable.
The Globe ran a story yesterday revealing that the president of this institution, one Leslie Cohen Berlowitz has, not to put too fine a point on it, lied about her academic credentials. That Ph.D from NYU that appears on her resume? NYU has no record of it. In fact, the good “Doctor”’s only claim to the title is an honorary degree, and calling yourself a Doc on the strength of a free degree is a giant academic no-no.
But the real story here is twofold. First, there’s the backstory, and dare we assume that word of Ms. Berlowitz’s mendacity may have come to the Globe from her staff:
She was almost fired in 1997, a year after she became chief executive of the academy, because of her heavy-handed management style, according to a former member of the governance board who asked not to be named.
Gail Loffredo lasted just 14 days as Berlowitz’s executive assistant in 2012. She said Berlowitz fired her last year after her teenage daughter found a lump in her chest and Loffredo told Berlowitz she needed to take her daughter to the doctor the following week. Loffredo later learned that Berlowitz had gone through as many as five other assistants in as many months.
“She is horrible,” Loffredo said, adding that she regularly witnessed Berlowitz scolding employees in her office in front of colleagues.
Ben Didsbury, a former membership coordinator charged with compiling contact information for academy fellows, recalled being ordered to apologize in front of other staffers after Berlowitz mistakenly called a person’s fax number rather the voice line and thought Didsbury had reversed the numbers.
“There was fear permeating through the whole place,” said Didsbury, who now works as a freelance audio engineer in Cambridge.
Workers were even afraid to speak much of the time, making the office seem eerily quiet. Didsbury recalls one time when an office assistant asked him if he needed any more staples, and Berlowitz stormed into his office yelling: “You do not talk to each other!”
(via The Boston Globe)
Did I mention that this lady is paid over $600,000.00 (more than most college presidents) to run an institution with a budget of a little more than $8 million? Or that she is chauffeured around by her long suffering employees, travels frequently on the Academy’s dime, and while doing so eats at only the finest restaurants?
But I haven’t gotten to the second fold (the story is twofold, remember?). When the Globe confronted her, she, of course refused to speak. She had a flack do it for her. Unfortunately, the response was, shall we say, not terribly convincing:
“Neither the academy nor President Berlowitz is going to respond to subjective, interpretive, and gossipy allegations from former employees and unnamed sources,” Howell said in the statement. “Nor are they going to respond to personal questions that are irrelevant, do not belong in the public domain and, frankly, smack of sexism.”
Well that didn’t really quite cut it, for obvious reasons. In fact, my wife and I were speculating about whether press flack Howell was purposely subverting his boss, but given her style she surely reviewed every word before it was released. So, yesterday, they tried again. Bear in mind that the Globe’s original article concentrated more on her penchant for “kissing up and kicking down” (a great phrase, that) than on her fraud. So, give a guess how she chose to explain the fraud:
A spokesman for Berlowitz, who has often clashed with employees in her 17-year tenure, blamed her staff for incorrect information in a statement Tuesday, even though Berlowitz signed some of the submissions and is known for being a micromanager who insists on seeing every document that leaves the academy.
“President Berlowitz, who reviewed only the substantive content of the applications, was unaware of the mistakes,” academy spokesman Ray Howell said in the statement. “President Berlowitz takes full responsibility for the error, and the academy is working to correct the information with relevant funding agencies.”
(via The Boston Globe)
Blame the staff, of course. It’s clear from the articles that there is no way in the world the woman wasn’t aware of the fraud.
This truly is a story of our time. Arrogance, greed, fraud, and contempt for the ordinary American worker, all mixed up and baked to perfection. She missed her calling. She belongs on Wall Street.
Postscript: While my son does have a fellowship at the Academy, he doesn’t, so far as I know, work directly for this woman and never mentioned her before we read the article. He is not “staff” and is not among her victims.
A wise man once said: “Some things in life are bad. They can really make you mad. Other things just make you swear and curse.” This one is probably of the swear and curse variety. Seems that the upcoming G-8 summit is being held in a little Northern Ireland town that has been particularly hard hit by the depression. Not to worry, our lords and masters will not be having their noses rubbed in their dirty doings:
What they’ve done is they have filled the shop front window with a picture of what was the business before it went bankrupt or closed. In other words, grocery shops, butcher shops, pharmacies, you name it, they have placed large photographs in the windows that if you were driving past and glanced out the window, it would look as if this was a thriving business. It’s an attempt really by the local authority to make the place look as positive as possible for the visiting G8 leaders and their entourages, and it’s really tried to put a mask on a recession that has really hit this part of Ireland really very badly indeed.
(via Northern Ireland Town Fakes Prosperity for G8 Summit | @pritheworld)
But it’s not really the local authorities. The Austerity King is to blame:
This is one big initiative really stemming from the Foreign Office in London. This is David Cameron’s gig. It’s his invitation, it’s his decision to host the G8 in County Fermanagh, which is, don’t forget, part of the United Kingdom. It’s also on the island of Ireland, it’s in Northern Ireland, but he will be the hosting head of government and it’s his say so. Much of the money that has been spent in and around the host town of Enniskillen, about more than £300,000 worth, that’s getting on from half a million dollars, the bulk of the cash and certainly the driving force behind the plans to tidy up the place, that’s all coming from London.
Well, I suppose there’s a bright side. Little Enniskillen is the beneficiary of the only stimulus spending in which Cameron is prepared to engage. Devoutly must we hope, fervently must we pray, that Cameron’s Potemkin village will make a laughingstock out of its creator.
My wife has often remarked that while Elizabeth Warren is getting some mostly deserved attention for her progressive views, our own Chris Murphy is every bit her equal, something he’s recently proven by “no” vote on a proposed resolution to authorized President Obama to arm the Syrian rebels. From Chris’s email about the subject:
Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 15-3 in favor of giving President Obama the power to arm the Syrian rebels fighting against President Bashar al-Assad in their nation’s civil war. I was one of the three votes in opposition, joined by Senators Tom Udall and Rand Paul.
It was not an easy vote for me. I visited with Syrian refugees during my trip to the Middle East earlier this month. I met families who lost fathers, and daughters burned by government bombs.
I believe that Syria represents a grave human rights crisis, and I wholeheartedly support increasing humanitarian aid to the war-torn nation. But as of today, I draw a different conclusion when it comes to U.S. military intervention.
The fact is, we have failed over and over again in our attempts to pull the strings of Middle Eastern politics. At some point, we need to learn the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. Right now, I do not believe it is our national interest to send weapons into a conflict that could simply lead to more, rather than less, people being killed.
I don’t know if Obama asked for this power, but it’s passing strange that the same Republicans that insist he is a dictator striving to take away our precious right to kill each other are perfectly willing to give him carte blanche to get us into yet another war.
There is, as Chris observes, a pattern to these things. We interfere, and when all is said and done, the situation we leave behind is worse than the one we found when we moved in. It’s almost a given that nothing that replaces the current Syrian dictator will be an improvement, from our perspective, over what’s there now. It’s not like the rebels are going to implement a liberal democracy or anything. We’ll simply get another theocratic Middle Eastern regime. More power to them if they can get rid of their dictator, but our interests are best served by taking a hands off approach.
This one is apropos of nothing. Sometimes I get desperate. I came across Kinky as I scrolled through my iTunes library, and I thought, why not?
This is a good thing…
California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones and state insurance regulators from four other states have reached a settlement of up to $2.3 million with Cigna over handling practices for long-term disability insurance.
The settlement is the result of claims handling reviews by insurance departments in California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
Insurance officials found the insurer did not give due consideration to the medical findings of independent physicians, discounted information provided by Social Security disability decisions and failed to give appropriate consideration to workers’ compensation records.
(via Sacramento Business Journal)
…but not a necessary thing.
It’s an outgrowth of yet another federal law that encourages corporate crime. This time, perhaps, the result was unintended, but no one, to my knowledge, has made any effort to make the simple legislative fix that would stop this sort of behavior.
If a tree falls and hits your home, and your insurance company denies your claim, you can sue the company and a judge decides if you’re covered and how much you should get paid. The insurance company’s initial decision denying coverage is entitled to zero deference. In fact, in the case of any ambiguity, you get the benefit of the doubt. After all, you’ve been paying premiums, and if they meant to exclude something, they should have made that fact very clear.
Not so if you have been paying premiums through your salary or wages for a disability plan provided by your employer. In that case your health and disability insurance plans are covered by the Employees Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The insurance company “manages” the plan on behalf of your employer, and by virtue of that fact is considered a “fiduciary”. Fiduciaries can only be successfully sued if you can prove that they have done something that is “arbitrary and capricious”. That’s a very difficult burden. But the situation is really even worse than that. A worker without income is in no position to pay a lawyer, so any lawyer taking the case has to be willing to accept that difficult burden on a contingent basis. The potential payoff on a percentage basis can be small, considering the amount of work involved. You can recover attorney’s fees from the company if you win, but simply proving that they acted arbitrarily and capriciously isn’t enough. To get attorneys fees you have to prove they were even worse than that. So you are unlikely to take a case unless it’s clear that the decision the company made was not just arbitrary and capricious, but bordering on bat-shit crazy. The result, of course, is that very few cases are filed, and only a small percentage of them are winners. I’ve handled several, and I’ve concluded that the only way to win is to get a lawyer involved at the very beginning of the process, long before most people think to do so. When it’s time to sue the case is already lost, because, guess what, you don’t get a trial. All the judge can do is decide if the company’s decision was arbitrary and capricious based on the evidence the company had before it, and if the worker didn’t provide sufficient evidence of the right quality, then whose problem is that?
Knowing they can almost never be successfully sued, might, don’t you think, encourage companies to deny coverage? If the rules were changed to make the worker’s burden of proof the same as in other insurance situations, a nice little cottage industry of lawyers would rise up and keep the insurance companies honest. You wouldn’t grow rich on such cases, but you’d make a living, and it wouldn’t be necessary for the attorneys general to come in and nick CIGNA for pocket change and some institutional changes they’ll ignore as soon as the heat is off.
What’s the difference between a bank and a crime syndicate?
Did I hear “None”?
Well, there is one. One has a banking license and one doesn’t.