Wolfowitz's Deluded Self-Defense

Washington, DC/Present Day:

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz on Monday decried what he called a "smear campaign" against him and told a special bank panel that he acted in good faith in securing a promotion and pay raise for his girlfriend.

Uh, wait a minute. He's appointed to one of the top public-service economic institutions in the world, an exceedingly high-profile, high-visibility, highly political position requiring national-level nomination and confirmation as well as acceptance by the governments of the world, and yet he believes he's done nothing wrong in dictating the terms of his girlfriend's employment in the same organization he's running? And this is supposed to be one of the smartest political men in the United States?

It's one of three things:

1) He is an absolute moron, and really, truly believes he's done nothing wrong. This is highly unlikely, or he wouldn't have gotten to where he is today. Although, given the Chief Executive, one can never be too sure.

2) He's a liar. He knows he was wrong, and wrong from the beginning. He knows it'll blow over, that people will forget the moment there's an airliner crash or a baby stuck in a well or a white high school girl who disappears from her class trip. He's just stonewalling until something more salacious takes the heat off him, which it will. He knows America has no stomch for protracted struggle, no fortitude to take a principled stand and not let go of it, and he's just going to wait them out. And the sad part is that he's probably right. This is most likely the case.

3) He's one of those politicians whose personal view of himself has risen above reality and his constituents, who genuinely believes he's done nothing wrong. He'll take a polygraph on the issue, and pass with flying colors, because way down deep he doesn't think he's done anything wrong. This is the worst kind of abuse of power, and I really get this flavor from his public statements. He's evolved past mere normal, day-to-day mortal, and is now in the realm of the black chauffered limosine and perks and unquestioning deference to his every whim. The bastard probably doesn't even carry a wallet anymore, doesn't even put on his own coat or polish his own shoes. The only thing he probably does on his own is go to the bathroom. He and his quite frankly quite highly unattractive mate deserve this merely because of who he is, and we rabble's questioning of his priorities and decision-making are childish, pointless braying, and ultimately futile. He is above and beyond us, and therefore beyond our non-applicable ethical and moral structures for the consideration of others.

In a prepared statement to the panel, Wolfowitz said the institution's ethics committee had access to all the details surrounding the arrangement involving bank employee Shaha Riza, "if they wanted it."

Wolfowitz told the panel that: "I acted transparently, sought and received guidance from the bank's ethics committee and conducted myself in good faith in accordance with that guidance."

So the fact that he was apparently above-board as he was dictating an obscenely large raise and a promotion and a move, not for some friend or the son of a college buddy, but the equivalent of his wife is somehow okay? It's okay that you're open and honest when, as you first take over this highly political position where every other move you take you should be asking yourself, "Is this within my ethical bounds?" you dictate to your organization where your lady will work, who she will work for, who will work for her, and how much she will be paid?

Sorry, Paul, but the buck stops with you. This is about leadership, and you can't delegate responsibility. YOU are the one who should've realized this was wrong from the beginning. And YOU are the one who should have, at some point, said, "Stop." Or better yet, even backtracked, admitted publicly that you'd made a huge mistake, and then made the attempt to make it right. That's leadership. Yeah, the lawyers may argue that it's not expressly wrong from the World Bank's rules/regulations perspective, and they're probably right. But on its face, when two adults look at each other across the table: it's wrong and I know it, and you know it.

The special bank panel is investigating Wolfowitz' handling of the 2005 promotion of bank employee Riza, who was scheduled to appear later in the day.

The controversy has prompted calls for Wolfowitz's resignation. The bank's 24-member board is expected to make a decision in the case this week.

What about Riza's resignation? Where are the calls for her to get her ass out of town? She's also mature enough to know that what was done for her was wrong. Complicit or not, she needs to do the right thing and resign. She's been receiving her pay and position not based on merit, but based on what clearly is nepotism, except they're not married. She was promoted and paid out of touch with the realities of the institution, unfairly, based on her personal connections within the organization, and there wasn't a single minute when she did not know this. When is Riza going to do the right thing?

Wolfowitz lamented that the controversy over the pay package was part of an effort to oust him from the office, which he has held for nearly two years.

Yeah, that's exactly right. You should be out of the office for this. Never mind your role in the Iraq war, which will haunt you and your descendants for decades to come. But that's a whole 'nother story.

"The goal of this smear campaign, I believe, is to create a self- fulfilling prophecy that I am an ineffective leader and must step down for that reason alone, even if the ethics charges are unwarranted," Wolfowitz said.

Yeah, this does speak directly to your leadership, Paul. It's flawed and unethical and at its core completely dishonest and self-serving. Yeah, that seems to spell out ineffective leadership pretty clearly, if one of the first things you do in office is arrange position and pay for your partner. You see, Paul, and it's reflected so undeniably clearly in the single sentence that you've uttered, is that you don't even begin to see how questions about your ethics are part and parcel of your leadership ability. You can't lead, and now no one will follow because at the very least people have doubts about your motives. It looks an awful lot like you place the needs of those closest to you above the needs of your organization and its personnel. At worst, you are cynical and dishonest, knowingly abusing power and privilege to benefit someone close to you, at the expense of the organizaiton you are supposed to be leading. Yeah, that's more than enough for me to make a judgment about your leadership abilities. You ARE ineffective.

Let's paint a picture: It's World War I, the Battle of the Somme. We're in our trench, and the call to go over the top is coming shortly. Captain Paul Wolfowitz, who last week made sure that his batman got new boots and a new blanket and a rifle that works reliably, as well as a new coat and 2 pounds more a month going home to his family, draws his .38 revolver and checks his six puny cartridges, wiping the tiny beads of condensation from the pink primer rings. We troops know that much about the batman and his treatment, but not the details, the how or the why, or what Captain Wolfowitz's reasons were. All we know is what we see. But that's more than enough. And the batman isn't giving the stuff back. He's happy with it, is keeping it, keeping his mouth shut, and probably wants more. He's sticking with the Captain, knowing that he's not doing the right thing, and is only thinking of himself. It's almost time now; the artillery barrage is starting to lift, the deafening pounding ligthening surprisingly quickly to a deathly silence. Then come the startling whistles up and down the trench to go over the top. Captain Wolfowitz hits the ladder, yells, "C'mon, lads, I'm not an ineffective leader!" and heads right on up.

And who do you think will follow? What do you think his fate will be?

He vowed to fight for his job. "I will not resign in the face of a plainly bogus charge of conflict of interest," he said.

Uh, I don't think we're necessarily talking conflict of interest here, Paul, at least not in a large sense. We're talking ethics violations taking place in the context of nepotism. But conflict of interest? Well, yeah, I guess. He's clearly shown that when it comes to the best interests of his partner, he's got no conflicts at all, despite his sworn oath to the contrary.

VT Hypersensivity, and the Reluctance to Face an Unplesant Truth

BOSTON, sometime around 23 April:

An adjunct professor was fired after leading a classroom discussion about the Virginia Tech shootings in which he pointed a marker at some students and said, "Pow."

Okay, right up front, I think this guy has been really, really screwed over by an overzealous, ridiculously and blindly hypersensitive school administration, a group focused more on themselves than truth, and I hope he sues the living shit out of these corporate, close-minded idiots. That being said, I really don't think pointing an icon for a weapon at students and going "pow," just a few days after the event, even in a free-flowing and adult discussion, was a wise move. But not so unwise that you should lose your livelihood.

The five-minute demonstration at Emmanuel College on Wednesday, two days after a student killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus, included a discussion of gun control, whether to respond to violence with violence, and the public's "celebration of victimhood," said the professor, Nicholas Winset.

How do you even begin to discuss all three of these things in five minutes? That's patently absurd to begin with. You can't even set the stage for a discussion of gun control in five minutes, let alone have a meaningful discussion of the political, cultural, social and economic forces at play in the immensely sensitive minefield that is US gun control? So, even with this tiny bit of information, the university's decision to terminate this instructor becomes so much more thin.

And, responding to violence with violence? Well, yeah, there are a multitude of responses to that, and endless discussion that could go on and on. Of course, the real question here is: how many VT victims were murdered pleading, praying for mercy, hoping they didn't get found? Everyone responds to crisis in their own way, but the last thing in the world that will ever happen to me is to stand--more correctly, kneel--before an executioner and beg for my life. That psycho may well shoot me down, but he's going to do that with my hands around his throat, charging at him wielding a chair or a phone or a ballpoint pen, anything that I can use to defend myself and attempt to save my own life, and even those of others. In a situation like this one, waiting and hoping and praying is not the way out--direct, immediate, and decisive action is the way to fight back and take charge of your fate. There is no information on this, but I sincerely hope that the numbers of those murdered at VT without a fight is not high.

And the celebration of victimhood. I could not agree more. It shouldn't be about support for those who were murdered, more correctly support for those close to and left behind as a result of the murders, shattered and forever changed by the lightning-fast capriciousness and unblinking cruelty of life. Instead, it's about a pathetic national culture, a pathetic, clinging national need to be a part of something, to take part, to be involved. At its very core, it's not about the victims and their loved one(s), but about the individual mourners, strangers all, about them and what they're doing. It's the morons who cried for days when Diana was killed (if she'd been home with her children, it would not have happened). It's the idiots in Oklahoma getting coverage of their candlelight vigil, with the banner of their social organization or high school band prominent in the shot, and in the sad, sorrowful, tearful statement by their official representative. It's about everyone in the country buying every bit of VT merchandise they can get their hands on so they can wear it to work the next day--to make what statement again? It's about the moronic middle school poem written by some truly innocent, well-meaning kid that then gets forwarded to 4500 people in the recreational soccer league. It's about the Blacksburg firefighters who showed up to the VT convocation in full fire turnout, to support a firefighter colleague and VT student--completely uninvolved in the shooting--who was upset about what had happened. It's about truly absolutely meaningless public altars piled with teddy bears and candles and balloons in New York or New Mexico, Tierra del Fuego, or (insert your location here).

During the demonstration, Winset pretended to shoot some students. Then one student pretended to shoot Winset to illustrate his point that the gunman might have been stopped had another student or faculty member been armed.

Again, the shooting demonstration doesn't seem wise. It can be considered tacky, sure, but given the hypersensitivity surrounding the entire issue, this just wasn't a smart thing to do. I would not have done this.

But, had "another student been armed . . ." That's dangerous territory. No, guns shouldn't be on a college campus, in an academic building, in the classroom, period. I own numerous firearms, have a license to carry a concealed weapon (and do), and I believe very solidly in my Constitutional right to acquire and bear arms, but let's be reasonable here, folks. No, more guns in the hands of college students is not the right idea, not at all. Just like giving airline pilots pistols also has never been and remains not the right idea.

But, defending yourself in the face of an attack where the stakes are life or death? You betcha. What the professor apparently was getting at, and maybe the student, too, was that you've gotta assess, decide, and act. YOU, not those you are hoping will come and save your heinie. Just like we were taught so painfully by 9/11 and Katrina, the government is top-heavy, bureaucratic, formalistic, and relies on deliberate processes to act on anything, large or small. If a psycho is executing everyone he sees in the room next door, and 27 seconds later in the hallway outside your room, your situation is real RIGHT NOW, not 30 or 40 minutes later when SWAT arrives, sets up their cordon, coordinates with campus police, and makes an initial assessment of the situation (hell, apparently they couldn't even get past the chained front doors). By that time, the entire event is over and done, with nothing left to do but make identifications and treat the wounded. If you're in the building and you are the one who has chosen to and done something, you might be alive. If you've waited for help and hoped and prayed, then I would think your chances would be much, much less good.

The folks on 9/11 Flight 93 assessed, decided, and then acted. They lost, sure, but the also stopped the original plan, and gave themselves a chance. They did not die on their knees, and made themselves heroes--not victims--in the process.

"A classroom is supposed to be a place for academic exploration," Winset, who taught financial accounting, told the Boston Herald.

He said administrators had asked the faculty to engage students on the issue. But on Friday, he got a letter saying he was fired and ordering him to stay off campus.

So, the school asks instructors to engage their students on the tragedy? Yes, I agree, that's a healthy thing to do. And they don't give guidance on what to say and not to say? They don't quickly huddle and give the instructing staff coordinated talking points, and the things to completely avoid? And then they fire the guy for executing their directive, without any leadership guidance? That's just, once again, shockingly incompetent management blaming the subordinate for their own glaring failure.

And, they order him off campus immediately, to make sure he can't talk to anyone, hold a press conference in front of a campus building, engage any of his department, faculty or college leadership in a discussion of why they've decided to fire him. Sadly predictable.

Winset, 37, argued that the Catholic liberal arts school was stifling free discussion by firing him, and he said the move would have a "chilling effect" on open debate. He posted an 18-minute video on the online site YouTube defending his action.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with the prof here. They asked him to discuss it, and he did. And he treated his students like the adults that they are, and the school came down on him for it.

The college issued a statement saying: "Emmanuel College has clear standards of classroom and campus conduct, and does not in any way condone the use of discriminatory or obscene language."

That's their response? "Discrimanatory and obscene," that's their response? Well, given the apparent complete and total lack of any kind of prior thought in their instruction to professors to speak with their students about the tragedy, this is fully consistent, at least. What part of discussing gun control is discrimanatory and obscene? What part of the philosophical debate on fighting violence with violence is discrimanatory and obscene? Apparently no one was excluded from the discussion. And what part of examining the culture of victimhood is disrimanatory and obscene? Sure, you can take offense at someone who is questioning your motives and sincerity when you erect an altar 2500 miles away from a highly public tragedy. You can deny it and say that we/I don't understand. But that's neither discrimanatory nor obscene, not unless you raise your rhetoric--typical--to the ridiculous of level of hyperbole, up there with people equating parking violations and tax cuts to the Holocaust and Hitler, conflating the most minor issues with the most major and most infamous.

Nowhere in any of the reporting have I see has this professor denigrated the victims. He did not say they deserved it (of course, none did). He did not praise the murderer. He did not trivialize the event or its implications. He did not make light of the tragedy. None of that would be appropriate, and I would say that any of this would be grounds for immediate and very serious administrative actions at the school. But that isn't what happened. In fact, he was taking the entire situation just as seriously as one should. And for this his incompetent leadership has reacted by turning on him.

Student Junny Lee, 19, told The Boston Globe that most students didn't appear to find Winset's demonstration offensive.

And there you go, the thing I was looking for. Treat young people like adults, and they will act like adults. You may not agree with the subject and its discussion, but that means you don't take part, you walk out, or you engage in rational, adult debate with the other side to outline, describe and defend your position. That's what rational, adult discussion is all about (not applicable to Rush, O'Reilly, etc.).

This is just the college's immediate, knee-jerk reaction to their own failures, and to what could be a public opinion that might go against them. For the college, it's fears of loss of alumni donations, endowment drops, less applicants, maybe we'll have to put off the new field house for 18 months. It's about commerce, the business of post-secondary education. And sadly, it's not about the tradition of truly open and free speech in college, about identifying and exploring the usually off-limits discussions, where young and old can actually learn something, instead of having it crammed down their throat by parents, the media, and everyone else that conspires to control minds, media, and the message.

I hope Mr. Winset sues the living hell out of this incompetent college. Send me a note, professor, and I'll write you a $100 check for your legal costs.

Going Down in Santorini

From the early April 2007 news:

ATHENS, Greece--The captain of a cruise ship that sank off an Aegean Sea island, sending more than 1,500 passengers and crew onto rescue boats, was charged Saturday with causing a shipwreck through negligence.

Yup, that sounds about right, given that the harbor, the crater, the rocks/reef have been known and marked for only a few thousand years.

The 469-foot Sea Diamond sank after hitting a well-marked and charted reef on Thursday, in fair weather, inside the Greek island of Santorini's sea-filled volcanic crater. The ship's Greek captain was also charged with breaching international shipping safety regulations and polluting the environment, a Merchant Marine Ministry spokeswoman said. Another five officers were questioned, but the spokeswoman was unable to confirm a state TV report that they also had been charged. All six were set free, but will provide new testimony next week.

The ship had been minutes away from docking under the spectacular cliffs that make Santorini one of Greece's top tourist destinations. It was carrying 1,154 tourists, most from the U.S., and 391 hundred crew members.

The stricken vessel was evacuated in a three-hour operation, but Jean- Christophe Allain, 45, and his 16-year-old daughter, Maud, from Doue- la-Fontaine in western France were listed as missing, feared to have been trapped in their flooded lower-deck cabin.

I've seen reports the mom/wife got out: if she made it, it's unclear how these two did not. If they are dead, that's a true tragedy. There are only a handful of people in the world I'd wish a drowning death upon; my ex-wife is one of them.

A three-day search has found no trace of them; officials said a robot submarine would investigate the hulk—lying more than 330 feet under the water's surface—next week.
The evacuation revived memories of the September 2000 Express Samina ferry shipwreck off the holiday island of Paros, which killed 80 people.

Yiannis Evangelou, the head of Greece's association of travel and tourist agencies, said the Sea Diamond's rescue operation, which he watched from a nearby ferry, was "exemplary."
But some passengers complained of an insufficient supply of life vests and life boats, little guidance from crew members and being forced into a steep climb down rope-ladders to safety. Claire Chevrier said she and her friends clung to the deck railing as the ship started sinking.
"It was the most horrifying experience in the world. There weren't enough life boats," said Chevrier, an 18-year-old from Boca Raton, Fla., to returned home on Saturday. "We had to walk a plank from the ship to a ferry boat."

Claire, you moron, it was a shipwreck. Like a log flume ride, it's safe to assume you're going to get wet. You got off a sinking ship with your life, so it's kind of unclear to me why walking a plank and climbing down steep rope ladders was such an arduous and unpleasant affair. Me, I think it'd be an incredible albeit terrifying adventure. It's not like the crew is going to practice rope ladder descents before the ship leaves port. I couldn't help but wonder how many of these complaining passengers read the warning and evacuation instructions in their cabins, or took the time to listen to the mandatory briefing as they departed--probably not too many.

Passengers said water quickly filled the bottom floors and spilled from the pools.

Yes, water does tend to fill the bottom of a sinking ship. Brilliant observation, all around. And if the ship lists, yes, the swimming pools will tend to spill their contents. I'm amazed passengers didn't complain of their inability to set their drinks on the listing bar.

Several people had broken arms, and many passengers didn't even have time to put on shoes after crew members started banging on doors yelling for people to put on their life jackets, Chevrier said.

Claire, you thick-headed idiot (and you're only 18; so many more years of blissful idiocy ahead of you), a shipwrech is chaotic and unplanned, hence the need for rapid action. If it's drowning or my shoes, Neptune can just have my favorite Sperry Topsiders; I'll get some flip-flops at the dock.

Mindy Hochfelsen said her 18-year-old daughter, Amanda, is diabetic and lost her insulin and syringes. She said the cruise line and the government were not very helpful with people who had health needs. "It was absolutely a disaster," Hochfelsen said.

The operation took 3 hours, it's not like you were stranded in the desert for 27 days. Holy Jeebus, an American will find any sad and sorry crutch to make sure they are the absolute center of attention.

A spokesman for the ship's Cyprus-based operator, Louis Cruise Lines, said the company was working closely with Greek investigators. "We would like to express our deep sorrow over the accident, and our thoughts are with the two missing people and their family," said Giorgos Stathopoulos. "The Sea Diamond was fully up to date with its inspections."

The 21-year-old Sea Diamond sank at the end of a four-day cruise, which included visits to the islands of Mykonos, Rhodes, Patios and Crete, and to the Turkish resort of Kusadasi. Tourism officials hastened to play down the potential impact on Greece's vital tourism industry—which accounts for an estimated 18 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product. "Whoever is responsible for this will be held accountable in the strictest way," Tourism Minister Fanny Palli Petralia said. "Greece is a major tourism destination, and incidents like this must not be allowed to occur. ... Authorities handled the rescue very well."

Evangelou said the shipwreck—at the start of a promising tourist season—could put off prospective cruise-goers. "But ... an error by one human being cannot be seen as typical of safety and accident prevention measures in the country." Greek newspapers were critical Saturday in their reporting of the accident.

Where is the reporting on the crew fleeing before the passengers were off? That's almost standard for any shipwreck these days, isn't it? I'm sure it'll come along soon enough.