Wouldn't it be wonderful if just once we could have an attorney general in Massachusetts that actually wanted the job? Think back in recent history about every one of our former A.G's over the past 51 years and the hallmark of all 8 out of 9 of them was that they all ran for something else. It isn't a perfect record because the current A.G. hasn't had an opportunity yet (that is certainly in the wings if a senate seat is soon vacated).
I only went back 51 years because convenient web history wasn't available on the AG before Ed McCormack but I am sure the trend doesn't end there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Attorney_General
Of course they have the right to want to move up in the world but isn't it rather unseemly for the chief law enforcement officer of the state to be always on the look out for a political opportunity? Doesn't it bring to mind that the political advisers of each of these people might have been thinking what is that one big case that we can exploit to give our candidate an edge?
Was the Fells Acre case, Microsoft suit, and the Big Dig adhesive case all examples of political decision making? Perhaps non prosecution is political as well, such as no conspiracy charges in the cover up of the church pedophile cases or why have the Feds been making cases in Boston corruption but the state isn't?
We can examine a smaller example right here in Burlington. Back in July the Friends of Mary Cummings Park filed a complaint against Boston for its egregious breach of trust. Four months later a letter comes back assuring them that Boston is not selling the property but does not address the issues of the squandering of funds nor does it explain why if Boston is not attempting to sell the property why would they file ANR plans in Woburn and Burlington to grandfather zoning development rights?
Additionally, it makes mention that they see no reason why Boston shouldn't be able to demolish a building on the property but fails to mention that if Boston had been doing its fiduciary duty, demolition of a trust asset would be unnecessary.
Contrast this with the response from the A.G.'s office over the recent announcement by Brandeis University that they were going to sell off assets and close the Rose Museum. Within a day the A.G.'s office had this to say by Emily LaGrassa, director of communications for the state attorney general;
"Ms. LaGrassa said that in the case of Brandeis, the attorney general would review wills and agreements made between the museum and the estates of donors to determine if selling artworks violated the terms of donations."
Could it be that it was politically expedient for the AG to get right on top of this issue because she will garner a lot of public attention? Aren't the issues of donor rights the same for Mrs. Cummings as they are for the donors to the Rose Museum? Or is the difference the size of the constituency and the amount of publicity the deciding factor? Apparently, in Massachusetts, adding to the public stature of the AG has always been added to the scales of justice in the decision making process.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Varitek Gets His Due?
Jason Varitek will be 37 years old on April 11, 2009. If he were a banker or a lawyer or a doctor he would be just beginning his most productive years and might look forward to a glorious and distinguished career. Varitek however, is a major league baseball player and his position is catcher. Glorious careers as catchers end around the 37 year old mark, not begin.
Unfortunately for Varitek, he or his agent seem to be uninformed of this reality by virtue of the most recent contractual decisions they have made. Varitek finished a four year deal at roughly ten million dollars a year. He was captain of a team that won two World Series and generally speaking was revered in Red Sox Nation.
Despite the fact that Varitek barely hit his weight this past year, he was still considered a vital cog in the club's plans. Although not coming to agreement on a new long term contract the Sox did offer him arbitration which in all likelihood might have resulted in a one year deal worth nine or ten million dollars. Certainly not chump change in the view of us working stiffs.
Varitek's agent, the despicable Boras advised his client to reject this insult. The result of that decision was that if another club chose to offer Varitek a free agent deal then they would have to compensate the Sox with their first round draft choice. This turn of events had the effect of forcing clubs to make a hard analysis of Varitek's declining skills. Would a 37 year old catcher who is a guaranteed out at the bottom of your line up be worth a big long term contract and giving up a future pick?
So far that answer has been a resounding no. Boras' reasoning on all of this came about as a result of the Jorge Posada signing by the Yankees. On November 12, 2007, Posada signed a 4-year, $52 million contract to remain with the Yankees. Some of the comparisons between Posada and Varitek are worthy. Posada is one year older than Varitek however he is a much better hitter. But statistical comparison are irrelevant when talking about these contracts. Posada was with the Yankees and the Yankees can pay stupid money for an aging catcher. The Sox have tended to be much more prudent in the spending of their money. It was also a much different economic condition in baseball and in the nation generally when Posada signed.
There is another back ground element to consider here as well. Boras is also Manny Ramirez's agent. In what will go down in history as infamous behavior, Manny refused to play last year until he was shipped out of town and his 20 million dollar option was lost by the Red Sox. In addition to losing his bat for the play off run the Sox also had to contribute part of his salary to the Dodgers in order to get his cancerous presence out of the club house. Can there be any doubt that Boras was behind this ploy?
So far the strategy has not worked for Boras in either case. Manny's brag last year that "gas was up and so was he" is a bit prescient because now gas is down and so far Boras has no takers for Manny. Wouldn't it be wonderful that after refusing the Dodger's reported 46 million dollars for two years that Manny has to take say 30 million? For us mortals that would be a fine pay day but for Manny and Boras it would be enormous blows to their egos.
Which brings us back to Varitek. Do the Sox punish Boras and Varitek by simply passing on him and go in the proverbial "other direction?" We shall soon see as it was reported last night that Varitek had requested a meeting with Sox owner John Henry, apparently without Boras present. When the player comes back hat in hand to the owner without agent representation it generally means capitulation.
It is too bad that the situation has gotten to where it is. Varitek is highly regarded and could have finished his career with class in Boston with all the accolades he deserved. Instead he went for piggy money and now he and his agent should be made to pay the price. Replacing an old catcher is inevitable so the Sox might as well do it now rather than later.
Unfortunately for Varitek, he or his agent seem to be uninformed of this reality by virtue of the most recent contractual decisions they have made. Varitek finished a four year deal at roughly ten million dollars a year. He was captain of a team that won two World Series and generally speaking was revered in Red Sox Nation.
Despite the fact that Varitek barely hit his weight this past year, he was still considered a vital cog in the club's plans. Although not coming to agreement on a new long term contract the Sox did offer him arbitration which in all likelihood might have resulted in a one year deal worth nine or ten million dollars. Certainly not chump change in the view of us working stiffs.
Varitek's agent, the despicable Boras advised his client to reject this insult. The result of that decision was that if another club chose to offer Varitek a free agent deal then they would have to compensate the Sox with their first round draft choice. This turn of events had the effect of forcing clubs to make a hard analysis of Varitek's declining skills. Would a 37 year old catcher who is a guaranteed out at the bottom of your line up be worth a big long term contract and giving up a future pick?
So far that answer has been a resounding no. Boras' reasoning on all of this came about as a result of the Jorge Posada signing by the Yankees. On November 12, 2007, Posada signed a 4-year, $52 million contract to remain with the Yankees. Some of the comparisons between Posada and Varitek are worthy. Posada is one year older than Varitek however he is a much better hitter. But statistical comparison are irrelevant when talking about these contracts. Posada was with the Yankees and the Yankees can pay stupid money for an aging catcher. The Sox have tended to be much more prudent in the spending of their money. It was also a much different economic condition in baseball and in the nation generally when Posada signed.
There is another back ground element to consider here as well. Boras is also Manny Ramirez's agent. In what will go down in history as infamous behavior, Manny refused to play last year until he was shipped out of town and his 20 million dollar option was lost by the Red Sox. In addition to losing his bat for the play off run the Sox also had to contribute part of his salary to the Dodgers in order to get his cancerous presence out of the club house. Can there be any doubt that Boras was behind this ploy?
So far the strategy has not worked for Boras in either case. Manny's brag last year that "gas was up and so was he" is a bit prescient because now gas is down and so far Boras has no takers for Manny. Wouldn't it be wonderful that after refusing the Dodger's reported 46 million dollars for two years that Manny has to take say 30 million? For us mortals that would be a fine pay day but for Manny and Boras it would be enormous blows to their egos.
Which brings us back to Varitek. Do the Sox punish Boras and Varitek by simply passing on him and go in the proverbial "other direction?" We shall soon see as it was reported last night that Varitek had requested a meeting with Sox owner John Henry, apparently without Boras present. When the player comes back hat in hand to the owner without agent representation it generally means capitulation.
It is too bad that the situation has gotten to where it is. Varitek is highly regarded and could have finished his career with class in Boston with all the accolades he deserved. Instead he went for piggy money and now he and his agent should be made to pay the price. Replacing an old catcher is inevitable so the Sox might as well do it now rather than later.
More of the Same
Very shortly a proud American event will unfold in Washington as the peaceful transition of power will once again take place. What also will happen will be the beginnings of a general disappointment for the winning side.
For those Americans who think the new president is going to be some major agent of change and that we will be making any dramatic swings in policy in domestic or foreign affairs will soon find out that won’t be the case. Obama is moving away from them and towards the policy of the people and administration that he defeated. Obama won as an unabashed Leftist but he will be making a run to the center as fast as he can.
He will not be opening dialog with Iran or North Korea. Hamas and Hezbollah will not be bargaining partners and he probably not lower the foolish Cuban embargo or repeal NAFTA.
There will be no dramatic break through in the Middle East, he will not bring troops home from Iraq any faster than a Republican might have. He will be escalating the violence in Afghanistan and more than likely will be injecting the American military power in the Sudan or Somalia or both.
If he does empty Guantanamo what is he going to do with the hardened militants that we have captured and housed there? Shifting them to another country does not seem to be an alternative. If he releases them what happens the first time one of them is implicated in the murder of Americans?
His choices on the economy are limited and his administration will continue what President Bush began in the latter stages of his presidency to deal with the economic crisis. In fact, Obama’s stimulus package may take on a Republican look which will include a major tax cut.
Already he is back pedaling on many of his campaign promises and now refers to how we will have to sacrifice. The early stages of his preparations have had stumbles that are noteworthy. His nomination of Governor Richardson quickly came undone. He first rejected the idea of seating Roland Burruss and now seems to have been embarrassed and out maneuvered by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
His support of Timothy Geithner for Treasury Secretary opens up some questions very early on about his judgement. Obama knew that Geithner had failed to pay income taxes yet appointed him anyway. In a country where paying taxes is largely voluntary, how do you put a man in charge of tax collection who knowingly avoided paying his taxes and only ponied up when he got caught?
The Boston Globe opined that it was unlikely that his appointment would be derailed because he is so “brilliant.” Of course the Globe fails to point out that if he is so brilliant how come he can’t pay his taxes like the rest of us?
It is too early to pass any judgment on the Hillary Clinton nomination for Secretary of State but it can be said that she is without much experience for the job and much like many of Obama’s other appointments, leftovers from the Bill Clinton administration are hardly the change we have been waiting for.
Leon Panetta is another good example. Although he served as a former white house chief of staff what exactly in that experience qualifies him to be director of the CIA? A good many Democrats in the senate had the good sense to question Obama’s judgment on the Panetta selection.
The appointment of Eric Holder as Attorney General raised some eyebrows because of Holder's involvement in the Clinton era Marc Rich pardon. Apparently Rich is the only member of the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List ever to be pardoned.
Inauguration day will soon be on us and lofty talk and ideals will soon be translated into action. Let’s hope that Obama is what most people think he is. Is he a skilled politician with new ideas and directions that make for real and positive change in the country or is he simply a rookie who got lucky and is in over his head? The presidency is a job that will soon expose his strengths and weaknesses in short-order.
For those Americans who think the new president is going to be some major agent of change and that we will be making any dramatic swings in policy in domestic or foreign affairs will soon find out that won’t be the case. Obama is moving away from them and towards the policy of the people and administration that he defeated. Obama won as an unabashed Leftist but he will be making a run to the center as fast as he can.
He will not be opening dialog with Iran or North Korea. Hamas and Hezbollah will not be bargaining partners and he probably not lower the foolish Cuban embargo or repeal NAFTA.
There will be no dramatic break through in the Middle East, he will not bring troops home from Iraq any faster than a Republican might have. He will be escalating the violence in Afghanistan and more than likely will be injecting the American military power in the Sudan or Somalia or both.
If he does empty Guantanamo what is he going to do with the hardened militants that we have captured and housed there? Shifting them to another country does not seem to be an alternative. If he releases them what happens the first time one of them is implicated in the murder of Americans?
His choices on the economy are limited and his administration will continue what President Bush began in the latter stages of his presidency to deal with the economic crisis. In fact, Obama’s stimulus package may take on a Republican look which will include a major tax cut.
Already he is back pedaling on many of his campaign promises and now refers to how we will have to sacrifice. The early stages of his preparations have had stumbles that are noteworthy. His nomination of Governor Richardson quickly came undone. He first rejected the idea of seating Roland Burruss and now seems to have been embarrassed and out maneuvered by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
His support of Timothy Geithner for Treasury Secretary opens up some questions very early on about his judgement. Obama knew that Geithner had failed to pay income taxes yet appointed him anyway. In a country where paying taxes is largely voluntary, how do you put a man in charge of tax collection who knowingly avoided paying his taxes and only ponied up when he got caught?
The Boston Globe opined that it was unlikely that his appointment would be derailed because he is so “brilliant.” Of course the Globe fails to point out that if he is so brilliant how come he can’t pay his taxes like the rest of us?
It is too early to pass any judgment on the Hillary Clinton nomination for Secretary of State but it can be said that she is without much experience for the job and much like many of Obama’s other appointments, leftovers from the Bill Clinton administration are hardly the change we have been waiting for.
Leon Panetta is another good example. Although he served as a former white house chief of staff what exactly in that experience qualifies him to be director of the CIA? A good many Democrats in the senate had the good sense to question Obama’s judgment on the Panetta selection.
The appointment of Eric Holder as Attorney General raised some eyebrows because of Holder's involvement in the Clinton era Marc Rich pardon. Apparently Rich is the only member of the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List ever to be pardoned.
Inauguration day will soon be on us and lofty talk and ideals will soon be translated into action. Let’s hope that Obama is what most people think he is. Is he a skilled politician with new ideas and directions that make for real and positive change in the country or is he simply a rookie who got lucky and is in over his head? The presidency is a job that will soon expose his strengths and weaknesses in short-order.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Um, Ya know
I happened to be at a party last week with a number of very liberal fellow Democrats. During the course of conversation came the subject of Caroline Kennedy being in the running for the appointment to the New York senate seat. I laughed out loud and was immediately set upon by the "citizens of the world" attendees. My most egregious sin was that I had the temerity to suggest that she would be a very poor selection because her resume was pretty thin, not to mention the fact that she rarely even votes.
I also made the mistake of pointing out that these were the same people who were adamant that Sarah Palin wasn't qualified to be anything except a foil for Saturday Night Live yet now they were gushing over Caroline.
Nothing I said mattered regarding the comparison of a former mayor and current governor of a state to that of Mrs. Schlossberg. Caroline would make a wonderful senator they all cried. Don't embarass yourself with a comparison to Palin they proclaimed.
Well this week it became apparent that I did a disservice to Palin by comparing her to a complete dimwit who can't seem to connect two words together in articulating a point of view.
In the course of a recent half hour interview, Caroline managed to utter the catch phrase "you know" over 200 times. Check on the web for the Youtube version or even look for the transcript, you will be stunned that a Columbia education could produce such communication skills.
It will be interesting to see how much ridicule the media offers on Caroline's performance versus that of Palin. Who can forget Tina Fey's hilarious mockery of Palin? Wouldn't it be really funny to see a cast member doing a 16 year old valley girl impression of Caroline? Don't count on seeing that.
I also made the mistake of pointing out that these were the same people who were adamant that Sarah Palin wasn't qualified to be anything except a foil for Saturday Night Live yet now they were gushing over Caroline.
Nothing I said mattered regarding the comparison of a former mayor and current governor of a state to that of Mrs. Schlossberg. Caroline would make a wonderful senator they all cried. Don't embarass yourself with a comparison to Palin they proclaimed.
Well this week it became apparent that I did a disservice to Palin by comparing her to a complete dimwit who can't seem to connect two words together in articulating a point of view.
In the course of a recent half hour interview, Caroline managed to utter the catch phrase "you know" over 200 times. Check on the web for the Youtube version or even look for the transcript, you will be stunned that a Columbia education could produce such communication skills.
It will be interesting to see how much ridicule the media offers on Caroline's performance versus that of Palin. Who can forget Tina Fey's hilarious mockery of Palin? Wouldn't it be really funny to see a cast member doing a 16 year old valley girl impression of Caroline? Don't count on seeing that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)