The mention comes from the Globe and Mail, through a column about one of modern Canada's more perennial topics: how much Americans really know about Canada. It discusses a Florida history class, "A Survey of Modern Canada," in which "the Conrad Black trial doesn't count as Canadian news."
There's also a full article, courtesy of the Guardian/Observer, which discusses the basic sympathy amongst the bulk of Canadian journalists for Conrad Black. The author, Martin Newland, juxtaposes this sympathy with a single instance of street-level schadenfreude that he heard. He chalks that sympathy up to latent anti-Americanism, although there is a hint that he concluded that the well-known Canadian sympathy reflex for the knocked-down has kicked in.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Friday, March 30, 2007
Objectivist Committee Supporting Conrad Black
Since The Verdict is only shown from Sundays to Thursdays, an episode wasn't shown tonight. Instead of a report on it, I point to an item from the "Daily Intelligencer," the blog of New York magazine. There's an ad hoc committee to support Conrad Black, one set up by Objectivists.
This committee has a Website, and 24 letters of support for Conrad Black as of the time of this post. As far as I can tell, it's ad hoc in more ways than one; it has drawn no mention from the official organ of Objectivism, nor from any other I've come across. The closest to a mention was a recent op-ed, by Peter Schwartz, on the theme that the current criticism of income inequality in America is raging against an epiphenomenon; it contains the Australianism "cutting down the tall poppies." There's also a brief press release criticizing a legislative proposal to put executive compensation on the shareholders' proxies for every annual meeting of public companies, but nothing explicitly related to the trial is there.
This committee has a Website, and 24 letters of support for Conrad Black as of the time of this post. As far as I can tell, it's ad hoc in more ways than one; it has drawn no mention from the official organ of Objectivism, nor from any other I've come across. The closest to a mention was a recent op-ed, by Peter Schwartz, on the theme that the current criticism of income inequality in America is raging against an epiphenomenon; it contains the Australianism "cutting down the tall poppies." There's also a brief press release criticizing a legislative proposal to put executive compensation on the shareholders' proxies for every annual meeting of public companies, but nothing explicitly related to the trial is there.
Media Roundup: Fade from Black
There aren't that many pieces on the Conrad Black trial to pass along today:
1. The Globe and Mail has a profile of Henry Kravis, husband of former Hollinger International director and audit-committee member, Marie-Josée Kravis.
2. From the New York Post, Janet Whitman's write-up on the book-launch party, held Wednesday night, which was attended by both Conrad and Barbara Black.
Also: from the blog of Wellington Financial, a lengthy opinion piece, whose theme is that corporate governance reform is putting an end to the practice of top management using corporate assets for quasi-personal purposes. Interestingly, for a corporate finance/venture capital firm, this piece is pro-comeuppance; the author(s) cheerfully take the other side of the renunciation-of-the-rights-of-the-nobility contextualization that Mr. Black used in one of his more known trial-related quotes. The piece forecasts hedge funds acting like investigative journalists in annual meetings, even through adapting the old buy-the-minimum-quantity-to-be-let-in tactic first used by activists in the 1970s. (Shareholder activism started through transference of proxy rights in 1966.) Wellington Financial is a Toronto firm.
1. The Globe and Mail has a profile of Henry Kravis, husband of former Hollinger International director and audit-committee member, Marie-Josée Kravis.
2. From the New York Post, Janet Whitman's write-up on the book-launch party, held Wednesday night, which was attended by both Conrad and Barbara Black.
Also: from the blog of Wellington Financial, a lengthy opinion piece, whose theme is that corporate governance reform is putting an end to the practice of top management using corporate assets for quasi-personal purposes. Interestingly, for a corporate finance/venture capital firm, this piece is pro-comeuppance; the author(s) cheerfully take the other side of the renunciation-of-the-rights-of-the-nobility contextualization that Mr. Black used in one of his more known trial-related quotes. The piece forecasts hedge funds acting like investigative journalists in annual meetings, even through adapting the old buy-the-minimum-quantity-to-be-let-in tactic first used by activists in the 1970s. (Shareholder activism started through transference of proxy rights in 1966.) Wellington Financial is a Toronto firm.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
The Verdict: Spilling Secrets
The part of tonight's episode of The Verdict that was devoted to the Conrad Black trial focused on private E-mails being introduced into a court of law, and to the public eye. In addition to a jury consultant, Dr. Paul Lisnek, two journalists were on for this segment, Christie Blatchford and Joe Warmington. At issue was those private letters between Conrad Black and his wife, Barbara.
Mr. Warmington started the discussion off with a brief recounting of the Toronto book-launch party that the Blacks had attended; he said that he had gotten in thanks to him tracking down a rumour, which speculated that there was an important party going on. While there, he saw that the Blacks' mood was surprisingly good.
Ms. Blatchford commented that the Blacks attending was similar to a person with a life-threatening illness living life as best he or she can. Doing so shows character.
Dr. Lisnek then discussed the introduction of the Blacks' E-mails to each other; as asked to by Ms. Todd, he assumed the prosecution's perspective. In order to introduce any of those letters, the prosecution team has to show relevance. The judge could, in theory, redact the “lovey-dovey” parts of any of those E-mails introduced into the evidence, but the scurrility factor would probably be there anyway. He also speculated that the prosecution is inclined to introduce as many of those E-mails as they can due to the “humiliation factor” Mr. Black would face. When asked by Ms. Todd if such a strategy could backfire, he replied that it would only if the jury cares about Mr. Black. Ms. Blatchford added that personal E-mails relating to Mrs. Black's expenditures have already been introduced, because they show "motive."
[There was also a brief discussion of the relevance of personal E-mails to the Lisa Nowak case in the rest of this segment.]
Despite much more coverage being given to the RCMP scandal in this episode of The Verdict, Ms. Todd's "closing argument" dealt exclusively with the Blacks' E-mails. She said that Mr. Black’s "narrow" conservatism may be helpful to him personally: he and Mrs. Black are legally married, and thus are entitled to spouses’ privilege, which will limit any attempt by the prosecution to put any of those interspousal communications into the record.
Mr. Warmington started the discussion off with a brief recounting of the Toronto book-launch party that the Blacks had attended; he said that he had gotten in thanks to him tracking down a rumour, which speculated that there was an important party going on. While there, he saw that the Blacks' mood was surprisingly good.
Ms. Blatchford commented that the Blacks attending was similar to a person with a life-threatening illness living life as best he or she can. Doing so shows character.
Dr. Lisnek then discussed the introduction of the Blacks' E-mails to each other; as asked to by Ms. Todd, he assumed the prosecution's perspective. In order to introduce any of those letters, the prosecution team has to show relevance. The judge could, in theory, redact the “lovey-dovey” parts of any of those E-mails introduced into the evidence, but the scurrility factor would probably be there anyway. He also speculated that the prosecution is inclined to introduce as many of those E-mails as they can due to the “humiliation factor” Mr. Black would face. When asked by Ms. Todd if such a strategy could backfire, he replied that it would only if the jury cares about Mr. Black. Ms. Blatchford added that personal E-mails relating to Mrs. Black's expenditures have already been introduced, because they show "motive."
[There was also a brief discussion of the relevance of personal E-mails to the Lisa Nowak case in the rest of this segment.]
Despite much more coverage being given to the RCMP scandal in this episode of The Verdict, Ms. Todd's "closing argument" dealt exclusively with the Blacks' E-mails. She said that Mr. Black’s "narrow" conservatism may be helpful to him personally: he and Mrs. Black are legally married, and thus are entitled to spouses’ privilege, which will limit any attempt by the prosecution to put any of those interspousal communications into the record.
Media Roundup: More Views, New News
Since the trial is on hiatus until Monday, the webbed media pieces relating to it delve into background and analysis, except for two that covered a Toronto news item:
1. The American Spectator has seen fit to notice the Conrad Black trial, through a webbed column by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. Concurring with Peter Worthington's forecast that Mr. Black will be found not guilty, Mr. Tyrrell mentions that the press has largely grown tired of the case, as of now. He also makes the penetrating observation that the relevant jealousies in this case were those of the minority shareholders. (This column has also been webbed by TownHall.com, with a comments section.) For the sake of political balance, I call attention to Now Magazine's re-webbing of a Naomi Klein piece originally posted in the Guardian Online's "Comment Is Free" section.
2. A report by Paul Waldie of the Globe and Mail discusses the relevance of Horizon Communications, a company largely owned by Mr. Black and Mr. Radler which was, in industry terms, in competition with Hollinger International. The existence of Horizon was raised briefly by Edward Genson in his cross-examination of Lloyd Case. Csr. Genson tried to elaborate, but a prosecution successfully objected to his development of the point. The objection was made by Julie Ruder, a member of the prosecution team who has gotten hardly any press so far.
3. Conrad Black himself managed to garner a mention in the press, for showing up in Toronto for a book-launch party held to celebrate the publication of George Jonas' latest book, Reflections on Islam: Ideas, Opinions, Arguments.
4. Joe Warmington, covering the same story, has details of how both of the Blacks acted (to him) at that party, held at Massey College. He claims to have crashed it, and saw not a hint of rancor from Barbara Black. Posted by both Canoe CNews and the Toronto Sun. It's been mentioned in the Manhattan Gawker's "Media Bubble" write-up, which also mentions that Primedia is seeking a new CEO.
5. The Birmingham News has a re-cap of this past week's trial events. No views; all summary.
6. Michael Sneed of the Chicago Sun-Times has two notes on the Conrad Black trial in his latest column. The first wonders if Mr. Black will testify; the second...
7. A column by the Toronto Star's Christopher Hume mentions the trial only in passing, while discussing Italy's use of public-private sector partnerships and recommending such a mix for Canada.
8. Legalbrief of South Africa has an opinion piece, entitled "Arrogance Is No Crime," that is available to subscribers only.
9. Maclean's magazine, in a press release, has announced that Mark Steyn will have an article on the trial in this week's print edition.
10. The Financial Post's Peter Breiger has had his observations on last week's testimony posted at the "Black Board," which contains observations from FP reporters covering the trial. The entry devoted to Mr. Brieger's focuses on decoding Thomas Henson's folksy figures of speech.
11. News of the Toronto party for George Jonas has made its way over the pond, thanks to the Times Online. The report there includes a note that Mr. Black "set aside his concerns over an awkward interrogation by immigration officers" to attend. It also notes that Mr. Jonas was the co-writer of Eddie Greenspan's autobiography, Greenspan for the Defence. (Csr. Greenspan was long known in Toronto for bring absent-minded about where his pens were.) An abbreviated version of the Times write-up has been webbed by the Australian.
MSNBC.com has just webbed a biographical article, from FT.com, on that same Eddie Greenspan, with a briefer spotlight on Edward Genson at the end of it.
Also: the Conrad-Black-in-Toronto story is also briefly recounted at the Quill and Quire blog, "Quillblog," as referenced to by Torontoist. The Quillblog entry has photos from the event, which number in the double digits.
And finally: a blog entry in "The Brad Blog" claims that Patrick Fitzgerald, prosecutor emeritus of the trial, was "swift-boated by Bush admin." It notes that the supposedly "undistinguished" ranking, purportedly of Csr. Fitzgerald's performance as a prosecutor, was really a list of ten U.S. attorneys, with three of them marked for "get rid of'" and five earmarked for "keep if you can." Csr. Fitzgerald simply was not on the list, which was not a true job rating: "According to sworn testimony by D. Kyle Sampson, today in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Fitzgerald was rated 'very strong' internally in the DOJ." Mr. Sampson also testified that he didn't earmark Csr. Fitzgerald because "'I knew he was handling a very sensitive case, and I really didn’t want to rate him one way or another.'” The entry that relates the entire story implies that the Conrad Black trial was that "sensitive case."
1. The American Spectator has seen fit to notice the Conrad Black trial, through a webbed column by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. Concurring with Peter Worthington's forecast that Mr. Black will be found not guilty, Mr. Tyrrell mentions that the press has largely grown tired of the case, as of now. He also makes the penetrating observation that the relevant jealousies in this case were those of the minority shareholders. (This column has also been webbed by TownHall.com, with a comments section.) For the sake of political balance, I call attention to Now Magazine's re-webbing of a Naomi Klein piece originally posted in the Guardian Online's "Comment Is Free" section.
2. A report by Paul Waldie of the Globe and Mail discusses the relevance of Horizon Communications, a company largely owned by Mr. Black and Mr. Radler which was, in industry terms, in competition with Hollinger International. The existence of Horizon was raised briefly by Edward Genson in his cross-examination of Lloyd Case. Csr. Genson tried to elaborate, but a prosecution successfully objected to his development of the point. The objection was made by Julie Ruder, a member of the prosecution team who has gotten hardly any press so far.
3. Conrad Black himself managed to garner a mention in the press, for showing up in Toronto for a book-launch party held to celebrate the publication of George Jonas' latest book, Reflections on Islam: Ideas, Opinions, Arguments.
4. Joe Warmington, covering the same story, has details of how both of the Blacks acted (to him) at that party, held at Massey College. He claims to have crashed it, and saw not a hint of rancor from Barbara Black. Posted by both Canoe CNews and the Toronto Sun. It's been mentioned in the Manhattan Gawker's "Media Bubble" write-up, which also mentions that Primedia is seeking a new CEO.
5. The Birmingham News has a re-cap of this past week's trial events. No views; all summary.
6. Michael Sneed of the Chicago Sun-Times has two notes on the Conrad Black trial in his latest column. The first wonders if Mr. Black will testify; the second...
7. A column by the Toronto Star's Christopher Hume mentions the trial only in passing, while discussing Italy's use of public-private sector partnerships and recommending such a mix for Canada.
8. Legalbrief of South Africa has an opinion piece, entitled "Arrogance Is No Crime," that is available to subscribers only.
9. Maclean's magazine, in a press release, has announced that Mark Steyn will have an article on the trial in this week's print edition.
10. The Financial Post's Peter Breiger has had his observations on last week's testimony posted at the "Black Board," which contains observations from FP reporters covering the trial. The entry devoted to Mr. Brieger's focuses on decoding Thomas Henson's folksy figures of speech.
11. News of the Toronto party for George Jonas has made its way over the pond, thanks to the Times Online. The report there includes a note that Mr. Black "set aside his concerns over an awkward interrogation by immigration officers" to attend. It also notes that Mr. Jonas was the co-writer of Eddie Greenspan's autobiography, Greenspan for the Defence. (Csr. Greenspan was long known in Toronto for bring absent-minded about where his pens were.) An abbreviated version of the Times write-up has been webbed by the Australian.
MSNBC.com has just webbed a biographical article, from FT.com, on that same Eddie Greenspan, with a briefer spotlight on Edward Genson at the end of it.
Also: the Conrad-Black-in-Toronto story is also briefly recounted at the Quill and Quire blog, "Quillblog," as referenced to by Torontoist. The Quillblog entry has photos from the event, which number in the double digits.
And finally: a blog entry in "The Brad Blog" claims that Patrick Fitzgerald, prosecutor emeritus of the trial, was "swift-boated by Bush admin." It notes that the supposedly "undistinguished" ranking, purportedly of Csr. Fitzgerald's performance as a prosecutor, was really a list of ten U.S. attorneys, with three of them marked for "get rid of'" and five earmarked for "keep if you can." Csr. Fitzgerald simply was not on the list, which was not a true job rating: "According to sworn testimony by D. Kyle Sampson, today in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Fitzgerald was rated 'very strong' internally in the DOJ." Mr. Sampson also testified that he didn't earmark Csr. Fitzgerald because "'I knew he was handling a very sensitive case, and I really didn’t want to rate him one way or another.'” The entry that relates the entire story implies that the Conrad Black trial was that "sensitive case."
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The Verdict: Audit of the Auditor
This night's episode of The Verdict contained only one segment about the Conrad Black trial, focusing on celebrity witnesses, with some attention paid to former Illinois governor James Thompson, the "longest-serving governor of the U.S. state of Illinois" according to the Wikipedia article on him. (One fact of note there is the name of his second lieutenant-governor: George H. Ryan.) The other two names brought up were Henry Kissinger and Donald Trump, both defense witnesses.
There were two guests on, Terry Sullivan and Christina Studebaker; as is the norm for the show, both are lawyers. Csr. Studebaker began by noting that, in the case of celebrity witnesses in general, the effect varies: the two that George Ryan's defense team brought in backfired on them. She noted that focus groups are used to gauge what preconceptions a typical jury member is likely to have with respect to the celebrity in question. Csr. Sullivan believed that Donald Trump could successfully "schmooze" the jury, and thus avoid alienating its members as a defense witness, which Csr. Studebaker concurred with. The segment ended with Csr. Studebaker opining that the former Gov. Thompson won't be seen by the jury a paragon of credibility if the defense team does their job properly.
As is now becoming normal for the show, the rest of The Verdict was devoted to other cases and issues.
There were two guests on, Terry Sullivan and Christina Studebaker; as is the norm for the show, both are lawyers. Csr. Studebaker began by noting that, in the case of celebrity witnesses in general, the effect varies: the two that George Ryan's defense team brought in backfired on them. She noted that focus groups are used to gauge what preconceptions a typical jury member is likely to have with respect to the celebrity in question. Csr. Sullivan believed that Donald Trump could successfully "schmooze" the jury, and thus avoid alienating its members as a defense witness, which Csr. Studebaker concurred with. The segment ended with Csr. Studebaker opining that the former Gov. Thompson won't be seen by the jury a paragon of credibility if the defense team does their job properly.
As is now becoming normal for the show, the rest of The Verdict was devoted to other cases and issues.
Wall Street Journal Strives For Balance
The latest entry of Toronto Life's Conrad Black Trial blog notes that the Wall Street Journal is letting both sides weigh in on the trial. Alan Murray may have gone too far with his pro-comeuppance editoral, "Black Trial Revives Bad Old Days." (Available only to subscribers of WSJ Online; a discussion thread on it is here.) Now, a pro-vindication editoral has been published: "Waste Case," by Holman L. Jenkins, Jr. (Once again, available only to WSJ Online subscribers.) This entry in the Toronto Life trial blog has a summary of it, in the last paragraph of text.
Also: The National Journal has a half-paragraph of "sympathy" for Conrad Black, at the end of an article on newspaper design. Posted at The Atlantic Online.
----------
I've just been informed that Amy St. Eve did not go with the prosecution team on their Toronto deposition-clarification trip. (Thanks to Theresa Tedesco for that information.) Since the prosecution will be too busy questioning Torontonians for the rest of this week, the trial itself doesn't start again until Monday.
Also: The National Journal has a half-paragraph of "sympathy" for Conrad Black, at the end of an article on newspaper design. Posted at The Atlantic Online.
----------
I've just been informed that Amy St. Eve did not go with the prosecution team on their Toronto deposition-clarification trip. (Thanks to Theresa Tedesco for that information.) Since the prosecution will be too busy questioning Torontonians for the rest of this week, the trial itself doesn't start again until Monday.
Media Roundup: Testimony and Oaths
The second week of the Conrad Black trial is over, and the testimony about the suspicious non-compete agreements, along with a David Radler anecdote, appears in the stories posted overnight:
1. The Chicago Tribune report, under Rudolph Bush's byline, includes the Kipnis-payment-memo item right after recounting Kipnis' turned-down request to Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc. (CHNI.) Notes the differing dollar amounts in each. (The former was used in the indictment, as cheques were issued on it.)
2. A Canadian Press report, webbed by 940 News and written by Romina Maurino. Provides a detailed wrap-up of the testimony of both Mike Reed and Thomas Henson, and also sketches out the testimony of Bill Paxton, CEO of the Paxton Group, and Lloyd Case, COO of Forum Communications. Both testified that they did not request a non-compete agreement from Hollinger International when buying one (Forum) or several (Paxton) properties from Hollinger Int'l. An abridgement of this report, credited to Ms. Maurino, focuses solely on the testimony of Mr. Reed and Mr. Henson.
3. The Evening Echo of Cork has webbed the Associated Press story, written by Mike Robinson, which also focuses on the testimony of the two major witnesses. This report specifies that the split of the non-compete payment was requested for the second CHNI deal. It was also webbed by Ireland Online.
4. NBC5 of Chicago has also webbed the Associated Press report. So does ABC7.
5. WIS10 of Columbia, South Carolina has webbed the Reuters report, written by Andrew Stern, as has the New Zealand Herald. It relays Mr. Paxton's testimony that he made a habit of paying non-compete fees to media companies that were "family-owned and the former owners were remaining in the community and might pose a competitive threat." He testified, under direct examination, that Hollinger Int'l didn't meet those criteria.
6. BusinessWeek.com has the AP "Summary Box" that notes that Mr. Paxton is returning to the stand next Monday.
7. The Bloomberg report has been picked up by the New York Times. Contains the fact that Community Newspapers Holdings, Inc. bought papers with circulations of 20,000 or less.
8. David Litterick's Telegraph report has been picked up by the New York Sun.
9. The Financial Post has a write-up that contains a quip from Amy St. Eve: "'I would have been very disappointed if you hadn't objected,' St. Eve joked." The report was written by Peter Brieger.
10. The Guardian is still covering the trial, with Andrew Clark still on the beat. His first report focuses on the "comic relief" moment, when Mr. Henson described Mr. Radler's negotiation tactic during a CNHI solicitation to buy 30 small newspapers from Hollinger Int'l. His second report details the testimony of Lloyd Case, which includes Mr. Case's opinion, given on the stand, that no non-compete fee was appropriate for the Jamestown Sun purchase, as there was no way that any company, including Hollinger Int'l itself, could have posed a competitive threat in Jamestown. It also has details on Bill Paxton's testimony, so far.
11. Paul Waldie of the Globe and Mail has another report, focusing exclusively on Mr. Case's testimony. He reports that Mr. Case did not ask for a non-compete agreement, but because it was tacked on with no increase in the purchase price, "'[w]e'd be silly not to take it"'.
12. The Toronto Star has a story on the entire trial so far, using a set-and-setting narrative, written by Jennifer Wells.
13. The Edmonton Journal has a report available only to subscribers.
14. From the Chicago Sun-Times, a wrapup that begins with a depiction of David Radler's "foul-mouthed, obnoxious act."
Also: a mention of the Conrad Black trial has made it into the Toronto Star's daily horoscope. It's in the introductory "Thought For The Day."
And finally, an old pro-comeuppance commentary from Ann Woolner has made it onto the Bangkok Post, as has an old Nation write-up by Naomi Klein onto Rabble.ca. On the pro-vindication side, Mark Steyn's latest entry in his trial blog notes that the prosecution's thoroughness, with regard to entering each version of a standard newspaper-property sale contract into the record, is moving towards mind-dulling repetitivenss. He also notes that charging Mr. Kipnis was essential to the prosecution's case against all four of them, and he includes a moment showing a certain prickliness in Mr. Case when cross-examined by Edward Genson.
1. The Chicago Tribune report, under Rudolph Bush's byline, includes the Kipnis-payment-memo item right after recounting Kipnis' turned-down request to Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc. (CHNI.) Notes the differing dollar amounts in each. (The former was used in the indictment, as cheques were issued on it.)
2. A Canadian Press report, webbed by 940 News and written by Romina Maurino. Provides a detailed wrap-up of the testimony of both Mike Reed and Thomas Henson, and also sketches out the testimony of Bill Paxton, CEO of the Paxton Group, and Lloyd Case, COO of Forum Communications. Both testified that they did not request a non-compete agreement from Hollinger International when buying one (Forum) or several (Paxton) properties from Hollinger Int'l. An abridgement of this report, credited to Ms. Maurino, focuses solely on the testimony of Mr. Reed and Mr. Henson.
3. The Evening Echo of Cork has webbed the Associated Press story, written by Mike Robinson, which also focuses on the testimony of the two major witnesses. This report specifies that the split of the non-compete payment was requested for the second CHNI deal. It was also webbed by Ireland Online.
4. NBC5 of Chicago has also webbed the Associated Press report. So does ABC7.
5. WIS10 of Columbia, South Carolina has webbed the Reuters report, written by Andrew Stern, as has the New Zealand Herald. It relays Mr. Paxton's testimony that he made a habit of paying non-compete fees to media companies that were "family-owned and the former owners were remaining in the community and might pose a competitive threat." He testified, under direct examination, that Hollinger Int'l didn't meet those criteria.
6. BusinessWeek.com has the AP "Summary Box" that notes that Mr. Paxton is returning to the stand next Monday.
7. The Bloomberg report has been picked up by the New York Times. Contains the fact that Community Newspapers Holdings, Inc. bought papers with circulations of 20,000 or less.
8. David Litterick's Telegraph report has been picked up by the New York Sun.
9. The Financial Post has a write-up that contains a quip from Amy St. Eve: "'I would have been very disappointed if you hadn't objected,' St. Eve joked." The report was written by Peter Brieger.
10. The Guardian is still covering the trial, with Andrew Clark still on the beat. His first report focuses on the "comic relief" moment, when Mr. Henson described Mr. Radler's negotiation tactic during a CNHI solicitation to buy 30 small newspapers from Hollinger Int'l. His second report details the testimony of Lloyd Case, which includes Mr. Case's opinion, given on the stand, that no non-compete fee was appropriate for the Jamestown Sun purchase, as there was no way that any company, including Hollinger Int'l itself, could have posed a competitive threat in Jamestown. It also has details on Bill Paxton's testimony, so far.
11. Paul Waldie of the Globe and Mail has another report, focusing exclusively on Mr. Case's testimony. He reports that Mr. Case did not ask for a non-compete agreement, but because it was tacked on with no increase in the purchase price, "'[w]e'd be silly not to take it"'.
12. The Toronto Star has a story on the entire trial so far, using a set-and-setting narrative, written by Jennifer Wells.
13. The Edmonton Journal has a report available only to subscribers.
14. From the Chicago Sun-Times, a wrapup that begins with a depiction of David Radler's "foul-mouthed, obnoxious act."
Also: a mention of the Conrad Black trial has made it into the Toronto Star's daily horoscope. It's in the introductory "Thought For The Day."
And finally, an old pro-comeuppance commentary from Ann Woolner has made it onto the Bangkok Post, as has an old Nation write-up by Naomi Klein onto Rabble.ca. On the pro-vindication side, Mark Steyn's latest entry in his trial blog notes that the prosecution's thoroughness, with regard to entering each version of a standard newspaper-property sale contract into the record, is moving towards mind-dulling repetitivenss. He also notes that charging Mr. Kipnis was essential to the prosecution's case against all four of them, and he includes a moment showing a certain prickliness in Mr. Case when cross-examined by Edward Genson.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The Verdict: The Kent Fuse, Defused
Tonight's episode of The Verdict, now back on the air after a one-day pre-emption for Quebec election coverage, had only one segment devoted to the Conrad Black trial. (One other featured an interview with Nancy Grace, who discussed why California juries are reluctant to convict the rich and famous.)
That segment had Robert Kent, Jr. on, with Canadian criminal lawyer Boris Bytensky. He softened his original remarks about the prosecution team that he had made earlier today, noting that Monday-morning quarterbacking is basically uncalled for, a sentiment that Csr. Bytensky agreed with. They did disagree, though, on the efficaciousness of Jeffrey Cramer's opening statement.
According to Csr. Kent, the prosecution's opening statement was too short, which enabled defense counsels to make points in their own opening statements that Csr. Cramer didn't pre-empt. [Edward Genson did pre-empt the attitude factor from being used by the prosecution in his own opening address.] His opener also glossed over the fact that the non-compete payments were in fact sent from the purchasers to Hollinger Inc., not to Conrad Black or to any of the other defendants personally. He also offered the advice that David Radler should testify in the middle of the prosecution's turn, so as both to lay a proper foundation for his testimony and to later defuse the savaging expected from defense counsels.
Csr. Bytensky's own assessment of Csr. Cramer's opening statement is that its brevity prevented over-repetitiveness from dulling its message. Thoroughness is more important for the closing address; if the case for the defense is not fully accounted for as of that point, the prosecution has no more chance to recover.
That segment had Robert Kent, Jr. on, with Canadian criminal lawyer Boris Bytensky. He softened his original remarks about the prosecution team that he had made earlier today, noting that Monday-morning quarterbacking is basically uncalled for, a sentiment that Csr. Bytensky agreed with. They did disagree, though, on the efficaciousness of Jeffrey Cramer's opening statement.
According to Csr. Kent, the prosecution's opening statement was too short, which enabled defense counsels to make points in their own opening statements that Csr. Cramer didn't pre-empt. [Edward Genson did pre-empt the attitude factor from being used by the prosecution in his own opening address.] His opener also glossed over the fact that the non-compete payments were in fact sent from the purchasers to Hollinger Inc., not to Conrad Black or to any of the other defendants personally. He also offered the advice that David Radler should testify in the middle of the prosecution's turn, so as both to lay a proper foundation for his testimony and to later defuse the savaging expected from defense counsels.
Csr. Bytensky's own assessment of Csr. Cramer's opening statement is that its brevity prevented over-repetitiveness from dulling its message. Thoroughness is more important for the closing address; if the case for the defense is not fully accounted for as of that point, the prosecution has no more chance to recover.
A glimpse of the paleo perspective on the Conrad Black trial, plus a more exotic one
Thanks to an anonymous commenter, I got a link to Taki's polemic on the trial, which interprets the coverage of it as yet another feeding frenzy in the "holier than thou members of the Fourth Estate;" Conrad Black's accusers are pegged as merely Savonarolaesque.
What was interesting about that article, though, was the comments it elicited; 6 out of 8 of the commentors (as of the time of this entry's posting) expressed plain dislike for Conrad Black, with at least two of them explicitly rooting for the prosecution. None of them appeared to be leftists, or even liberals.
The perspective that undergirds these comments is similar to that expressed by Justin Raimondo, a paleolibertarian, who has nothing but contempt for "The Neoconservative Personality." In that 2004 opinion piece, he held up Conrad Black as a neoconservative transmogrified by greed and power-lust. It's interesting, not to mention significant, that belief in Mr. Black's innocence is controversial within the American Right.
A more exotic example, from the blog "Sundown, The Tunnels and Pee Funnels": "Barbara Amiel No Libertarian." The political worldview expressed in it is similar to the commenter "james"'s response to Taki's excoriation of the American media.
What was interesting about that article, though, was the comments it elicited; 6 out of 8 of the commentors (as of the time of this entry's posting) expressed plain dislike for Conrad Black, with at least two of them explicitly rooting for the prosecution. None of them appeared to be leftists, or even liberals.
The perspective that undergirds these comments is similar to that expressed by Justin Raimondo, a paleolibertarian, who has nothing but contempt for "The Neoconservative Personality." In that 2004 opinion piece, he held up Conrad Black as a neoconservative transmogrified by greed and power-lust. It's interesting, not to mention significant, that belief in Mr. Black's innocence is controversial within the American Right.
A more exotic example, from the blog "Sundown, The Tunnels and Pee Funnels": "Barbara Amiel No Libertarian." The political worldview expressed in it is similar to the commenter "james"'s response to Taki's excoriation of the American media.
Tuesday Testimony of Thomas Henson
Paul Waldie, of the Globe and Mail, has an update on the testimony of Thomas Henson. Mr. Henson testified that he had refused to wire the funds to Conrad Black and the three other defendants, but later went along with it, as he later testified under cross-examination to Mark Kipnis' lawyer Michael Swartz. "During re-direct questioning by prosecutor Edward Siskel, Mr. Henson said he felt uncomfortable wiring the money." There are more details in Mr. Waldie's report itself.
There's a brief AP report from the Website of a Moline, Illinois TV station here. A more detailed write-up, with more details on Mr. Henson's testimony, has been webbed by the Daily Southtown, a Sun-Times Media Group paper. It's by AP's Mike Robinson, and it has more details on the testimony elicited from Mr. Henson under direct examination.
The report sent out by the Canadian Press, and webbed by the CBC, discloses that Mr. Henson admitted, under cross-examination, that he did sign off on it; however, "the transaction's 'closing book,' or formal record of the deal, would have been reviewed by auditors.
"'The transactions have to be booked," he said, 'and the auditors have to agree with the way they're booked.'" He also testified that he never met Conrad Black, according to this latest report, credited to Romina Maurino by the Toronto Star. Edward Genson stuck with the defense theory for Mr. Black, reminding the jury once again, during his turn at cross-examination, that it was Mr. Radler, not Mr. Black, who had negotiated the deals.
A memorable snippet from Ms. Maurino's latest: "Radler, he said, responded by shouting: '[You're] wasting my — fill in the blank — time and you have wasted your — fill in the blank — time,' Henson said, to avoid repeating the profanities he said were uttered by Radler.... Henson testified he was shocked by the confrontation with Radler, and later drew laughter in the courtroom by referring to him as a gentleman." The latest report from the Telegraph, by David Litterick, adds that Mr. Radler uttered that blank-word-laced ultimatum while standing "'nose-to-nose' with Mr Henson..."
BNN reported, in its 3 PM headlines, that Mr. Henson also testified that the entire legal team at Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc. had also signed off on the deal with the non-compete agreement, alleged to be part of the swindle, in it. There's a longer clip from the 1:50 PM broadcast, now webbed at BNN.ca, in which Mr. Waldie reported that Mr. Henson wanted to cover himself by seeking others' approval before signing off on the deal; the fact that he never raised any formal objections to the suspicious non-compete, tied in with the second and smaller CHNI purchase, was brought up by the defense.
Reuters has its report out now, written by Andrew Stern, which begins with "U.S. newspaper executives who bought community newspapers from Hollinger International Inc. testified on Tuesday they unwittingly agreed to divert some of the proceeds to a Canadian holding company that enriched media magnate Conrad Black, who is on trial for fraud." It also has a brief description of the testimony of Bill Paxton, along with a question by Csr. Genson, "about a separate newspaper holding company partly owned by Radler and Black" that was successfully objected to by the prosecution.
----------
The Chicagoist has webbed an interview with columnist Neil Steinberg, the one who compared Conrad Black to Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. Mr. Steinberg turns out to be quite a character.
There's a brief AP report from the Website of a Moline, Illinois TV station here. A more detailed write-up, with more details on Mr. Henson's testimony, has been webbed by the Daily Southtown, a Sun-Times Media Group paper. It's by AP's Mike Robinson, and it has more details on the testimony elicited from Mr. Henson under direct examination.
The report sent out by the Canadian Press, and webbed by the CBC, discloses that Mr. Henson admitted, under cross-examination, that he did sign off on it; however, "the transaction's 'closing book,' or formal record of the deal, would have been reviewed by auditors.
"'The transactions have to be booked," he said, 'and the auditors have to agree with the way they're booked.'" He also testified that he never met Conrad Black, according to this latest report, credited to Romina Maurino by the Toronto Star. Edward Genson stuck with the defense theory for Mr. Black, reminding the jury once again, during his turn at cross-examination, that it was Mr. Radler, not Mr. Black, who had negotiated the deals.
A memorable snippet from Ms. Maurino's latest: "Radler, he said, responded by shouting: '[You're] wasting my — fill in the blank — time and you have wasted your — fill in the blank — time,' Henson said, to avoid repeating the profanities he said were uttered by Radler.... Henson testified he was shocked by the confrontation with Radler, and later drew laughter in the courtroom by referring to him as a gentleman." The latest report from the Telegraph, by David Litterick, adds that Mr. Radler uttered that blank-word-laced ultimatum while standing "'nose-to-nose' with Mr Henson..."
BNN reported, in its 3 PM headlines, that Mr. Henson also testified that the entire legal team at Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc. had also signed off on the deal with the non-compete agreement, alleged to be part of the swindle, in it. There's a longer clip from the 1:50 PM broadcast, now webbed at BNN.ca, in which Mr. Waldie reported that Mr. Henson wanted to cover himself by seeking others' approval before signing off on the deal; the fact that he never raised any formal objections to the suspicious non-compete, tied in with the second and smaller CHNI purchase, was brought up by the defense.
Reuters has its report out now, written by Andrew Stern, which begins with "U.S. newspaper executives who bought community newspapers from Hollinger International Inc. testified on Tuesday they unwittingly agreed to divert some of the proceeds to a Canadian holding company that enriched media magnate Conrad Black, who is on trial for fraud." It also has a brief description of the testimony of Bill Paxton, along with a question by Csr. Genson, "about a separate newspaper holding company partly owned by Radler and Black" that was successfully objected to by the prosecution.
----------
The Chicagoist has webbed an interview with columnist Neil Steinberg, the one who compared Conrad Black to Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. Mr. Steinberg turns out to be quite a character.
Vancouver Sun Scoop
According to this item, by Barbara Shecter, in the Vancouver Sun's Website, former U.S. prosecutor Robert Kent said that his successors have "erred."
From the first paragraph: "Robert Kent, the former lead prosecutor in the criminal fraud and racketeering case against Conrad Black, says his successors in the U.S. prosecutor's office made a 'tactical error' by oversimplifying opening statements and failing to take time to counter upcoming arguments from the defence."
BetUS.com's odds on Conrad Black being found not guilty on all charges are still 10-1 against. Intrade's bids and asks for its Conrad Black Trial contracts (quotes in this entry) are still unchanged.
From the first paragraph: "Robert Kent, the former lead prosecutor in the criminal fraud and racketeering case against Conrad Black, says his successors in the U.S. prosecutor's office made a 'tactical error' by oversimplifying opening statements and failing to take time to counter upcoming arguments from the defence."
BetUS.com's odds on Conrad Black being found not guilty on all charges are still 10-1 against. Intrade's bids and asks for its Conrad Black Trial contracts (quotes in this entry) are still unchanged.
Media Roundup: Who was Whom?
After the end of week 2, day 1 of the Conrad Black trial, the reports on it have this to say:
1. From Rudolph Bush of the Chicago Tribune, a wrap-up of yesterday's testimony, with this excerpt from Michael Reed's cross examination: "Genson suggested that if Black had viewed the final contract between Hollinger and CNHI [Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.], he would have no reason to believe CNHI had not requested the non-competition agreement from Hollinger Inc."
2. An abbreviated report from Romina Maurino,webbed by the Free Press of London, Ontario. Another one, with more background facts, is here.
3. The most recent report from Mike Robinson of the Associated Press, which recounts that CNHI, in 1999, went along with the allocation of $12.5 million from the non-compete fee of $50 million for the first sale of newspaper properties from Hollinger International, as completed in 1999, because doing so would expedite the deal going through, on Hollinger Int'l's end. Webbed by the State, of South Carolina.
4. The trial of Conrad Black gets a mention in the Boston Globe's "Business Notebook," as "Trial #2."
5. The Guardian has another report by Andrew Clark, which contains this significant bit of testimony from Mike Reed: "extra names [had] appeared unexpectedly on the documents, including Hollinger Inc, the Canadian entity that held Lord Black's 15% share and voting control of Hollinger International. Mr Reed was surprised, believing such stringent anti-competing contracts were unnecessary: 'They're typically one daily newspaper towns. There aren't [competing] daily newspapers for them to acquire, and the financial metrics of starting new newspapers aren't attractive.'" It also contains an update on the status of the Tribune's motion to release the names of the jurors.
6. A brief write-up from 680 News about the continuation of Thomas Henson's testimony today.
7. Chris Lackner of CanWest News Service has found a Website where direct bets can be placed on the outcome of the trial: BetUS.com. His report quotes the then-current odds. (Webbed by the Financial Post. BetUS.com has the Conrad Black trial in its "Entertainment/Corporate Scandals" section.) There's further info from this write-up: "More Than 3000 Place Bets on Fate of Conrad Black," posted by Gambling911.com.
[UPDATE on #7: BetUS.com seems to have closed the book on the entire "Corporate Scandals" subcategory in its "Entertainment" category. That's where the Conrad Black bet lines were found.]
8. A subscribers-only account of yesterday's trial events is available at the Ottawa Citizen.
9. This report in Canada.com News notes that Mr. Reed testified that the split of the non-compete payment between Hollinger Int'l and Hollinger Inc. was an 11th-hour amendment that "his company didn't care about...although it was not typical of about 100 newspaper deals with other sellers during his tenure as both the company's chief financial officer and CEO." It also notes that Mark Kipnis explained to Mr. Henson that the change "'was a way for [the recipients] to legally avoid certain tax in Canada.'" Also from it, a snippet on Mr. Henson's testimony: "Thomas Henson, CNHI's lawyer, mirrored that testimony later in the day, saying it was 'immaterial' if more parties were added to the non-compete payment, but sellers like Hollinger usually try to limit, not increase, the scope of those restrictions."
10. Paul Waldie's latest write-up, in the Globe and Mail, adds some perspective to yesterday's events. His report ends with: "Mr. Genson tried to make the point that Mr. Reed actually did want a non-compete with Lord Black and the others because they were still actively involved in the newspaper business through another company called Horizon. He also alluded to the fact that Mr. Radler negotiated the deal and he said that based on the final documents for the deal, 'as far as Lord Black knows, you did want a non-compete with him,' Mr. Genson said." In addition. it mentions that the initial agreement to sell the first block of newspaper properties was reached in 1998. Also, Mr. Waldie has a what-to-expect-today guide, which ends with a forecast of what the defense will challenge in their cross-examination of Mr. Henson. From it: "They will likely point out that the documents make it clear the non-competition payments were a condition of closing..."
11. The Chicago Sun-Times report by Mary Wisniewski starts off by noting that the claim that CNHI "requested" the split of its non-compete payment was refuted by Mr. Reed's testimony. Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed mentions Donald Trump's advice to Mr. Black in his latest column.
12. The Age of Melbourne, Australia has a summary of Mr. Reed's testimony from yesterday, which notes, "[i]t was not clear from testimony whether Black and the others ever got the money from that deal, though he and his three co-defendants are accused of absconding with $US60 million through similar transactions."
13. Also from Australasia, the New Zealand Herald itself has a summary of Mr. Reed's testimony.
In addition: this entry from the blog "Finlay ON Governance" contains a thoughtful and quite well-informed recounting of the demise of Conrad Black. The author of it, J. Richard Finlay, claims credibly to be an old near-neighbour of Mr. Black. In his heart, he's pro-comeuppance, although he's scrupulous with respect to the legal status of the case itself.
And finally, TheTyee.ca has a lengthy review of "The Book That Black Hates."
1. From Rudolph Bush of the Chicago Tribune, a wrap-up of yesterday's testimony, with this excerpt from Michael Reed's cross examination: "Genson suggested that if Black had viewed the final contract between Hollinger and CNHI [Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.], he would have no reason to believe CNHI had not requested the non-competition agreement from Hollinger Inc."
2. An abbreviated report from Romina Maurino,webbed by the Free Press of London, Ontario. Another one, with more background facts, is here.
3. The most recent report from Mike Robinson of the Associated Press, which recounts that CNHI, in 1999, went along with the allocation of $12.5 million from the non-compete fee of $50 million for the first sale of newspaper properties from Hollinger International, as completed in 1999, because doing so would expedite the deal going through, on Hollinger Int'l's end. Webbed by the State, of South Carolina.
4. The trial of Conrad Black gets a mention in the Boston Globe's "Business Notebook," as "Trial #2."
5. The Guardian has another report by Andrew Clark, which contains this significant bit of testimony from Mike Reed: "extra names [had] appeared unexpectedly on the documents, including Hollinger Inc, the Canadian entity that held Lord Black's 15% share and voting control of Hollinger International. Mr Reed was surprised, believing such stringent anti-competing contracts were unnecessary: 'They're typically one daily newspaper towns. There aren't [competing] daily newspapers for them to acquire, and the financial metrics of starting new newspapers aren't attractive.'" It also contains an update on the status of the Tribune's motion to release the names of the jurors.
6. A brief write-up from 680 News about the continuation of Thomas Henson's testimony today.
7. Chris Lackner of CanWest News Service has found a Website where direct bets can be placed on the outcome of the trial: BetUS.com. His report quotes the then-current odds. (Webbed by the Financial Post. BetUS.com has the Conrad Black trial in its "Entertainment/Corporate Scandals" section.) There's further info from this write-up: "More Than 3000 Place Bets on Fate of Conrad Black," posted by Gambling911.com.
[UPDATE on #7: BetUS.com seems to have closed the book on the entire "Corporate Scandals" subcategory in its "Entertainment" category. That's where the Conrad Black bet lines were found.]
8. A subscribers-only account of yesterday's trial events is available at the Ottawa Citizen.
9. This report in Canada.com News notes that Mr. Reed testified that the split of the non-compete payment between Hollinger Int'l and Hollinger Inc. was an 11th-hour amendment that "his company didn't care about...although it was not typical of about 100 newspaper deals with other sellers during his tenure as both the company's chief financial officer and CEO." It also notes that Mark Kipnis explained to Mr. Henson that the change "'was a way for [the recipients] to legally avoid certain tax in Canada.'" Also from it, a snippet on Mr. Henson's testimony: "Thomas Henson, CNHI's lawyer, mirrored that testimony later in the day, saying it was 'immaterial' if more parties were added to the non-compete payment, but sellers like Hollinger usually try to limit, not increase, the scope of those restrictions."
10. Paul Waldie's latest write-up, in the Globe and Mail, adds some perspective to yesterday's events. His report ends with: "Mr. Genson tried to make the point that Mr. Reed actually did want a non-compete with Lord Black and the others because they were still actively involved in the newspaper business through another company called Horizon. He also alluded to the fact that Mr. Radler negotiated the deal and he said that based on the final documents for the deal, 'as far as Lord Black knows, you did want a non-compete with him,' Mr. Genson said." In addition. it mentions that the initial agreement to sell the first block of newspaper properties was reached in 1998. Also, Mr. Waldie has a what-to-expect-today guide, which ends with a forecast of what the defense will challenge in their cross-examination of Mr. Henson. From it: "They will likely point out that the documents make it clear the non-competition payments were a condition of closing..."
11. The Chicago Sun-Times report by Mary Wisniewski starts off by noting that the claim that CNHI "requested" the split of its non-compete payment was refuted by Mr. Reed's testimony. Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed mentions Donald Trump's advice to Mr. Black in his latest column.
12. The Age of Melbourne, Australia has a summary of Mr. Reed's testimony from yesterday, which notes, "[i]t was not clear from testimony whether Black and the others ever got the money from that deal, though he and his three co-defendants are accused of absconding with $US60 million through similar transactions."
13. Also from Australasia, the New Zealand Herald itself has a summary of Mr. Reed's testimony.
In addition: this entry from the blog "Finlay ON Governance" contains a thoughtful and quite well-informed recounting of the demise of Conrad Black. The author of it, J. Richard Finlay, claims credibly to be an old near-neighbour of Mr. Black. In his heart, he's pro-comeuppance, although he's scrupulous with respect to the legal status of the case itself.
And finally, TheTyee.ca has a lengthy review of "The Book That Black Hates."
Monday, March 26, 2007
A Long Summary Of Barbara Amiel's "Confessions," Part 2
[This summary is a continuation of the summarizing of the first ten chapters of her 1980/81 book, Confessions, which is long out of print and not easy to find. The first part of the summary is here.]
After the proposed film on Mao's China fell apart, she began to read the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, deeply, and found that the horrors she had seen were the “fulfillment” (p. 111) of Communism. At the time she was doing so, as well as through the rest of the 1970s, the writings of “armchair socialists,” who were full of the spirit of blame externalization (p. 114,) were splayed all over the media. Reading their words brought the original texts to her memory. The key to classical liberalism, she concludes, is to assume, or realize, that the common good is “unknowable” (p. 117.) She then advocates that kind of liberalism, with the note that the price of a liberal society is the misuse of freedom, and imperfect justice. What differentiates democratic socialism and Communism, she continues, is the means of coercion they employ: the former group prefers to confine coercion to legislative, regulatory and court-imposed measures. This coercion is becoming less than fair for businesspeople, and for independent workers as well. She also notes that intent has to be proved for ordinary crimes, but not for what were called “hate crimes” at that time…or for speeding, for that matter (pp. 122-3.) She points to the same kind of servility she saw in Gertie emerging in Swedish professors, as of the late 1970s, a time when the professors there had to be appointed by the government. She also provides glimpses of the New Class emerging in Sweden at that time (pp. 123-5.) Ms. Amiel concludes that State dependency is addictive; the secret to socialism’s success is that it bestows license for the “laundered lie,” which Marxism calls “objective truth” (p. 127.)
In early 1973, she created a consumer-education game show for CTV News, and was amazed at the amount of obstructionism from its co-sponsor, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The money she made from that show gained her some risk capital to go into freelance journalism, and she began spreading the anti-socialist message. She notes that socialism induces a “spiritual and moral bankruptcy,” which leads, in geopolitics, to picking on small bully-nations while appeasing the bigger bully-nations. (pp. 128-9.) And, she concludes that false and misleading words can hurt society in general, by warping public opinion.
After receiving a commission from Chatelaine in 1974 to write a story on women abusing UI, in which she pointed out that only a small minority do so, she heard her report criticized by a female NDP staffer for Stephen Lewis before it had been typeset. The story was killed, even though she got full payment for it. She discusses feminist history as mythology, noting that societies tend to be organized pragmatically, and observes that modern North American feminism sprung from “a primitive set of values” (p.137) required by early North Americans to survive. She does bring up the glass ceiling, still prevalent in the late 1970s, but she notes that pay discrimination, often done for keep-‘em-happy reasons as opposed to value-creation reasons, had a root in the Criminal Code of Canada. At the time she wrote Confessions, section 215 of the Criminal Code imposed obligations for a father, but not for a mother, to provide basic support for his spouse and kids. [This is no longer true.] The legitimate cause of pay equity, though, was being mixed demands for “parity” (p. 139) – group status as an employability constraint. Measures such as that one push society out of its natural, pragmatic rhythms and customs. She points to three issues which, according to her, the feminist movement shows wooden-headedness: divorce property settlements, abortion and work benefits. She concludes that the feminist movement is, basically, an attempt by middle-class women to get government help traditionally reserved for the poor. In her discussion on abortion, she discloses that she herself had one, at the age of twenty-four when employed by the CBC as a script assistant, because she was “in too much of a hurry with life” (p. 144.)
Left-liberalism is creating an Alice-in-Wonderland polity, she opines. The example she uses is the whipping-boy treatment accorded to South Africa in the late 1970s, for its apartheid policies. The white South Africans 'earned' it because they did not cover up the tyranny they were in charge of with soothing (if largely unimplemented) “guarantees,” which the Communist Party elites in the Soviet bloc did. She also points to foreign aid being sent without later check-ups on how the funds were used. Her explanation of why fascistic regimes were the whipping boys in the 1970s is that the same governments doing so were too slow to wake up when fascism was ascendant in the 1930s. Rising to the big geopolitical threat of the time tends to “scare the horses,” except when it becomes an imminent threat. She holds up the anti-development crusade in late 1970s Canada, done under the rubric of native rights, as an example of what could be called, though not by her, a combination of righteousness and certitude in a scaffolding of plain partisanship, with rhetoric and exciting factoids in place of logic and careful unearthing of the entire set of facts.
She next discusses Canadian multiculturalism, which she opines is an attempt to drain both Quebec nationalism and resistance amongst English-Canadians to the introduction of French in their area. There’s also a Liberal patronage motive. The trouble with multiculturalism, though, is that it relies upon ethnic interest groups, who may have substituted loudness for popularity. In education, when combined with egalitarianism, it encourages opinioneering in place of study and fact-based argument. It also encourages, and sometimes mandates, the sanitizing of textbooks through blotting out facts that go contrary to the narrative; multiculturalism also tends to push for presenting ideals as norms. Three professors from the University of Toronto, J.M. Beattie, J.M.S. Careless and M.R. Marrus publicly complained about the former in a letter to the Globe and Mail (p. 171.)
Mao’s China, and the resultant Great Wall of Apologism, is what occupied her next. In the early 1970s, the left-libs wouldn’t admit to any massacres resulting from the Cultural Revolution, at all. The dissident literature from China was ignored. There was no “younger her” to spill the truth about what life was like in Mao's China, so she wrote a column for Maclean’s, which was printed, asking for someone to do so. It prompted a lot of critical letters – one from an employee of the National Film Board of Canada.
One of the cases that galvanized Ms. Amiel to fight for freedom of even disagreeable speech was the student-activist harassment of Edward C. Banfield, a Harvard sociologist, in March 1974. He was going to give a formal speech at the University of Toronto; it was cancelled. Another whipping boy, whose public trashing took place as of the opening of the 1970s, was Arthur Jensen. Once again, the Canadian left-liberals showed an inclination towards “keeping up with the Panthers.” She also highlights two local-to-Toronto victims of mau-mau activism. Both were professionals, inclined to be liberal, whose work in their field was rigorous; the latter showed a creative flair in his profession.
Amiel’s first brush with a Human Rights Commission occurred when she was at Maclean’s, in 1977. She received, through editor-in-chief Peter Newman, a complaint about her being (of all things) anti-German, signed by the then-Chairperson of the Manitoba Human Rights Commission (p. 197-8.) Her stiff reply prompted a press release from the Commission, making the complaint public, which got her called a “racist” (p. 202.) As the squabble continued, the MHRC evinced a deal-with-the-boss sneakiness as it continued its “educational” quest; she was only made aware of the exchanges because Mr. Newman forwarding the MHRC letter to her, on his own initiative. Shortly after that incident, the Ontario Human Rights Commission began talking to Mr. Newman about her writings, which may have resulted from the original interest-group complainant contacting the OHRC on his own initiative. She garnered the impression that “human rights officers” tended to parrot the complaints made to them.
She began looking into the Commission's operation. One report she read in 1977, written by a staffer in the OHRC in response to a series of brutish attacks on East Indians in Toronto, contained the proto-politically correct notion that only whites could be racist (p. 220.) That report, which landed on the desk of then-Attorney-General Roy McMurtry, not only recommended the scrubbing of textbooks mentioned earlier, but also the adding of an enforcement bureau to the OHRC, which was also implemented. The author became the Commissioner of Race Relations soon afterwards.
She discovered plans to impose sensitivity training sessions for community-relations workers in the Ontario Housing Corporation (replaced by the Social Housing Services Corporation) around that same time. Affirmative action was, of course, recommended, but Amiel calls attention to a case where that the operator of a gay bar was rebuked for “discriminatory” hiring practices, for trying to hire a gay waiter for it (p. 228.) As she became known as a critic of the HRCs, she found herself being typecast as a stereotypical “conservative” by her fellow journalists, and even was expected to defend positions she did not agree with, such as the police’s supposed right to interfere with civil liberties (pp. 233-4.) The main part of the book ends with her reflecting on that luncheon talk she had had with the rabbi, who had married her and Mr. Jonas, in his role as an official of the Ontario HRC. (An excerpt from it indicates that he was exhorting, not scolding, her and her husband – p. 237.) She leaves us, pre-appendix, with the conclusion that left-liberals do not want central planning of the economy, but they do want central planning of mores. She ends with a reflection on the cost of such central planning, not only to the polity but also to plain, old-fashioned, more informal civility.
[The appendix itself is not included in this summary.]
After the proposed film on Mao's China fell apart, she began to read the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, deeply, and found that the horrors she had seen were the “fulfillment” (p. 111) of Communism. At the time she was doing so, as well as through the rest of the 1970s, the writings of “armchair socialists,” who were full of the spirit of blame externalization (p. 114,) were splayed all over the media. Reading their words brought the original texts to her memory. The key to classical liberalism, she concludes, is to assume, or realize, that the common good is “unknowable” (p. 117.) She then advocates that kind of liberalism, with the note that the price of a liberal society is the misuse of freedom, and imperfect justice. What differentiates democratic socialism and Communism, she continues, is the means of coercion they employ: the former group prefers to confine coercion to legislative, regulatory and court-imposed measures. This coercion is becoming less than fair for businesspeople, and for independent workers as well. She also notes that intent has to be proved for ordinary crimes, but not for what were called “hate crimes” at that time…or for speeding, for that matter (pp. 122-3.) She points to the same kind of servility she saw in Gertie emerging in Swedish professors, as of the late 1970s, a time when the professors there had to be appointed by the government. She also provides glimpses of the New Class emerging in Sweden at that time (pp. 123-5.) Ms. Amiel concludes that State dependency is addictive; the secret to socialism’s success is that it bestows license for the “laundered lie,” which Marxism calls “objective truth” (p. 127.)
In early 1973, she created a consumer-education game show for CTV News, and was amazed at the amount of obstructionism from its co-sponsor, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The money she made from that show gained her some risk capital to go into freelance journalism, and she began spreading the anti-socialist message. She notes that socialism induces a “spiritual and moral bankruptcy,” which leads, in geopolitics, to picking on small bully-nations while appeasing the bigger bully-nations. (pp. 128-9.) And, she concludes that false and misleading words can hurt society in general, by warping public opinion.
After receiving a commission from Chatelaine in 1974 to write a story on women abusing UI, in which she pointed out that only a small minority do so, she heard her report criticized by a female NDP staffer for Stephen Lewis before it had been typeset. The story was killed, even though she got full payment for it. She discusses feminist history as mythology, noting that societies tend to be organized pragmatically, and observes that modern North American feminism sprung from “a primitive set of values” (p.137) required by early North Americans to survive. She does bring up the glass ceiling, still prevalent in the late 1970s, but she notes that pay discrimination, often done for keep-‘em-happy reasons as opposed to value-creation reasons, had a root in the Criminal Code of Canada. At the time she wrote Confessions, section 215 of the Criminal Code imposed obligations for a father, but not for a mother, to provide basic support for his spouse and kids. [This is no longer true.] The legitimate cause of pay equity, though, was being mixed demands for “parity” (p. 139) – group status as an employability constraint. Measures such as that one push society out of its natural, pragmatic rhythms and customs. She points to three issues which, according to her, the feminist movement shows wooden-headedness: divorce property settlements, abortion and work benefits. She concludes that the feminist movement is, basically, an attempt by middle-class women to get government help traditionally reserved for the poor. In her discussion on abortion, she discloses that she herself had one, at the age of twenty-four when employed by the CBC as a script assistant, because she was “in too much of a hurry with life” (p. 144.)
Left-liberalism is creating an Alice-in-Wonderland polity, she opines. The example she uses is the whipping-boy treatment accorded to South Africa in the late 1970s, for its apartheid policies. The white South Africans 'earned' it because they did not cover up the tyranny they were in charge of with soothing (if largely unimplemented) “guarantees,” which the Communist Party elites in the Soviet bloc did. She also points to foreign aid being sent without later check-ups on how the funds were used. Her explanation of why fascistic regimes were the whipping boys in the 1970s is that the same governments doing so were too slow to wake up when fascism was ascendant in the 1930s. Rising to the big geopolitical threat of the time tends to “scare the horses,” except when it becomes an imminent threat. She holds up the anti-development crusade in late 1970s Canada, done under the rubric of native rights, as an example of what could be called, though not by her, a combination of righteousness and certitude in a scaffolding of plain partisanship, with rhetoric and exciting factoids in place of logic and careful unearthing of the entire set of facts.
She next discusses Canadian multiculturalism, which she opines is an attempt to drain both Quebec nationalism and resistance amongst English-Canadians to the introduction of French in their area. There’s also a Liberal patronage motive. The trouble with multiculturalism, though, is that it relies upon ethnic interest groups, who may have substituted loudness for popularity. In education, when combined with egalitarianism, it encourages opinioneering in place of study and fact-based argument. It also encourages, and sometimes mandates, the sanitizing of textbooks through blotting out facts that go contrary to the narrative; multiculturalism also tends to push for presenting ideals as norms. Three professors from the University of Toronto, J.M. Beattie, J.M.S. Careless and M.R. Marrus publicly complained about the former in a letter to the Globe and Mail (p. 171.)
Mao’s China, and the resultant Great Wall of Apologism, is what occupied her next. In the early 1970s, the left-libs wouldn’t admit to any massacres resulting from the Cultural Revolution, at all. The dissident literature from China was ignored. There was no “younger her” to spill the truth about what life was like in Mao's China, so she wrote a column for Maclean’s, which was printed, asking for someone to do so. It prompted a lot of critical letters – one from an employee of the National Film Board of Canada.
One of the cases that galvanized Ms. Amiel to fight for freedom of even disagreeable speech was the student-activist harassment of Edward C. Banfield, a Harvard sociologist, in March 1974. He was going to give a formal speech at the University of Toronto; it was cancelled. Another whipping boy, whose public trashing took place as of the opening of the 1970s, was Arthur Jensen. Once again, the Canadian left-liberals showed an inclination towards “keeping up with the Panthers.” She also highlights two local-to-Toronto victims of mau-mau activism. Both were professionals, inclined to be liberal, whose work in their field was rigorous; the latter showed a creative flair in his profession.
Amiel’s first brush with a Human Rights Commission occurred when she was at Maclean’s, in 1977. She received, through editor-in-chief Peter Newman, a complaint about her being (of all things) anti-German, signed by the then-Chairperson of the Manitoba Human Rights Commission (p. 197-8.) Her stiff reply prompted a press release from the Commission, making the complaint public, which got her called a “racist” (p. 202.) As the squabble continued, the MHRC evinced a deal-with-the-boss sneakiness as it continued its “educational” quest; she was only made aware of the exchanges because Mr. Newman forwarding the MHRC letter to her, on his own initiative. Shortly after that incident, the Ontario Human Rights Commission began talking to Mr. Newman about her writings, which may have resulted from the original interest-group complainant contacting the OHRC on his own initiative. She garnered the impression that “human rights officers” tended to parrot the complaints made to them.
She began looking into the Commission's operation. One report she read in 1977, written by a staffer in the OHRC in response to a series of brutish attacks on East Indians in Toronto, contained the proto-politically correct notion that only whites could be racist (p. 220.) That report, which landed on the desk of then-Attorney-General Roy McMurtry, not only recommended the scrubbing of textbooks mentioned earlier, but also the adding of an enforcement bureau to the OHRC, which was also implemented. The author became the Commissioner of Race Relations soon afterwards.
She discovered plans to impose sensitivity training sessions for community-relations workers in the Ontario Housing Corporation (replaced by the Social Housing Services Corporation) around that same time. Affirmative action was, of course, recommended, but Amiel calls attention to a case where that the operator of a gay bar was rebuked for “discriminatory” hiring practices, for trying to hire a gay waiter for it (p. 228.) As she became known as a critic of the HRCs, she found herself being typecast as a stereotypical “conservative” by her fellow journalists, and even was expected to defend positions she did not agree with, such as the police’s supposed right to interfere with civil liberties (pp. 233-4.) The main part of the book ends with her reflecting on that luncheon talk she had had with the rabbi, who had married her and Mr. Jonas, in his role as an official of the Ontario HRC. (An excerpt from it indicates that he was exhorting, not scolding, her and her husband – p. 237.) She leaves us, pre-appendix, with the conclusion that left-liberals do not want central planning of the economy, but they do want central planning of mores. She ends with a reflection on the cost of such central planning, not only to the polity but also to plain, old-fashioned, more informal civility.
[The appendix itself is not included in this summary.]
Testimony of Prosecution Witness Thomas Henson
Mr. Henson was the outside counsel for Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc. (CNHI) at the time, according to an AP report posted at the Belleville News-Democrat. He seconded Mike Reid's own testimony that CNHI did not consider Hollinger, Inc. to be a competitive threat at the time of the sale. "They said the money would have been part of the deal anyway whether all of it went to Hollinger International or - as happened - a portion of it went to Hollinger Inc."
According to the report, Mr. Henson's direct examination, by Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Siskel, will continue tomorrow; once finished, the defense cross-examination of him will commence.
Another report, by Romina Maurino, has also been webbed, which gives more details on the cross-examination of Mr. Reid: "'You knew... that (Black and Radler) owned a lot of community newspapers. You knew that they had put together papers from scratch (and) built an empire,' Black's U.S. lawyer said." Her report also includes the full name of Angela Way, just as Mike Robinson's AP report, linked to above, includes the full name of Mr. Henson. Forbes.com also has a quick AP "Summary Box" on the day's trial events.
[REMINDER: The Verdict's been pre-empted for coverage of the Quebec provincial election. The Liberal Party of Quebec won, with a minority.]
According to the report, Mr. Henson's direct examination, by Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Siskel, will continue tomorrow; once finished, the defense cross-examination of him will commence.
Another report, by Romina Maurino, has also been webbed, which gives more details on the cross-examination of Mr. Reid: "'You knew... that (Black and Radler) owned a lot of community newspapers. You knew that they had put together papers from scratch (and) built an empire,' Black's U.S. lawyer said." Her report also includes the full name of Angela Way, just as Mike Robinson's AP report, linked to above, includes the full name of Mr. Henson. Forbes.com also has a quick AP "Summary Box" on the day's trial events.
[REMINDER: The Verdict's been pre-empted for coverage of the Quebec provincial election. The Liberal Party of Quebec won, with a minority.]
Radler Controversy, Of A Different Sort
A report from Haaretz's Website discloses that Haifa University is returning a $25,000 bequest from David Radler. "Radler's gift to the university has been frozen since 2003 after it was learned that some of the money was misappropriated from the Jerusalem Post's... charitable fund, which was established some 70 years ago to collect money from the paper's readers for the needy."
A Haifa spokesman, Amir Gilat, said to the paper that there was no procedure in place for quashing Mr. Radler's honourary doctorate from the university.
You'll find the details here, including the fact that Haifa was not the first university to return a Radler bequest.
A brief note of it has been posted at JTA's Website.
A Haifa spokesman, Amir Gilat, said to the paper that there was no procedure in place for quashing Mr. Radler's honourary doctorate from the university.
You'll find the details here, including the fact that Haifa was not the first university to return a Radler bequest.
A brief note of it has been posted at JTA's Website.
Monday's action in the Conrad Black trial
From a report on the opening of Week 2 of the trial, courtesy of 570 News: "Asked if the trial - a showy affair in its opening week - was progressing as he expected, Black replied 'even better.'"
That initial report was written by Romina Maurino. In it, she also discloses that the first witness, Craig Holick, was a no-show, according to Ms. Maurino, so the first witness called was Mike Reed, the ex-CEO of Community Newspaper Holdings, according to her more recent report.
It contains a detailed update, which includes Mr. Reed's testimony about the non-compete agreements in the two Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc. (CNHI) deals. Ms. Maurino reports that Mr. Reed "balked at paying 'non-compete' fees to Hollinger International executives, including Conrad Black,..."
Mr. Reed testified that, for the first deal, he had agreed to a non-compete agreement with Hollinger International, when it was first agreed to by both parties, but not to any other party. Mark Kipnis added Hollinger Inc. to the non-compete before the deal was closed. For the second deal, Reed testified that CNHI refused to put anyone other than Hollinger Int'l in the second non-compete. The updated report itself contains other details.
A further update contains a detail from Edward Genson's cross-examination. From that report: "In cross-examination, Black lawyer Ed Genson suggested that there was no mention in contracts surrounding documents surrounding the deals that the non-competes should only have been paid to Hollinger International." (The architect of the first deal was Mr. Kipnis; the architect of the second one, which Mr. Reed balked at, was Mr. Radler: source.) In that latest report, Ms. Maurino included the name of the next witness expected to testify, Thomas Henson, a name not on the original list of four expected to testify this week (Mr. Holick, Mr. Reed, Bill Paxton and Angela Way,) and contains a new explanation between that discrepancy between the $60 million figure mentioned in Jeffrey Cramer's opening address and the allegation of $83 million in the charges: "In addition to his alleged involvement in the redirection of non-compete payments, he is also accused of misusing about $20 million in corporate funds on personal expenses." Csr. Cramer mentioned the $60 million figure in connection with the non-compete agreements in his address, in which all four defendants were indicted.
Two other reports have been posted. The first, in the Telegraph, contains more detail on the cross-examination of Mr. Reed: "On cross-examination, Mr Reed said he had never met, talked to, or negotiated with Lord Black on the deal and had instead talked to his former partner Mr Radler, who has already pleaded guilty to a single count of fraud." [This report can be found here; it also mentions salacious language.] The second, from the Financial Post, discloses that a "handwritten asterisk on the closing documents" directed that $4.5 million, $4.5 million, $250,000 and $250,000 of the payment on the smaller second deal, with total purchase price of $92 million, be directed (respectively) to Conrad Black, David Radler, John Boultbee and Peter Atkinson. The request, by Mark Kipnis, to divert more than 10% of the sale price to four additional accounts is what got Mr. Reed's attention to the arrangement, especially given the fact that the total non-compete payment allocated for the $92 million sale, in 2000, was $3 million.
The Financial Post report concludes with this excerpt from the cross-examination: "'[The allocation of the non-compete-agreement proceeds] was none of your business,' lawyer Ed Genson said, and Reed agreed."
According to this Bloomberg report, Mr. Reed also testified that "Kipnis wanted the non-compete agreements from Hollinger Inc. and the individuals added them to the deal at no additional cost to Community Newspaper Holdings." This testimony sounds like it was elicited under direct examination; it makes the payment split look like a siphoning of sale proceeds from Hollinger International. In addition, "Reed said [under direct examination] he refused to wire the money because there was no provision for individual payments to the Hollinger executives in the contract."
Also: a lawyer in Whitby, Ontario, takes a crack at explaining what a non-compete agreement is.
That initial report was written by Romina Maurino. In it, she also discloses that the first witness, Craig Holick, was a no-show, according to Ms. Maurino, so the first witness called was Mike Reed, the ex-CEO of Community Newspaper Holdings, according to her more recent report.
It contains a detailed update, which includes Mr. Reed's testimony about the non-compete agreements in the two Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc. (CNHI) deals. Ms. Maurino reports that Mr. Reed "balked at paying 'non-compete' fees to Hollinger International executives, including Conrad Black,..."
Mr. Reed testified that, for the first deal, he had agreed to a non-compete agreement with Hollinger International, when it was first agreed to by both parties, but not to any other party. Mark Kipnis added Hollinger Inc. to the non-compete before the deal was closed. For the second deal, Reed testified that CNHI refused to put anyone other than Hollinger Int'l in the second non-compete. The updated report itself contains other details.
A further update contains a detail from Edward Genson's cross-examination. From that report: "In cross-examination, Black lawyer Ed Genson suggested that there was no mention in contracts surrounding documents surrounding the deals that the non-competes should only have been paid to Hollinger International." (The architect of the first deal was Mr. Kipnis; the architect of the second one, which Mr. Reed balked at, was Mr. Radler: source.) In that latest report, Ms. Maurino included the name of the next witness expected to testify, Thomas Henson, a name not on the original list of four expected to testify this week (Mr. Holick, Mr. Reed, Bill Paxton and Angela Way,) and contains a new explanation between that discrepancy between the $60 million figure mentioned in Jeffrey Cramer's opening address and the allegation of $83 million in the charges: "In addition to his alleged involvement in the redirection of non-compete payments, he is also accused of misusing about $20 million in corporate funds on personal expenses." Csr. Cramer mentioned the $60 million figure in connection with the non-compete agreements in his address, in which all four defendants were indicted.
Two other reports have been posted. The first, in the Telegraph, contains more detail on the cross-examination of Mr. Reed: "On cross-examination, Mr Reed said he had never met, talked to, or negotiated with Lord Black on the deal and had instead talked to his former partner Mr Radler, who has already pleaded guilty to a single count of fraud." [This report can be found here; it also mentions salacious language.] The second, from the Financial Post, discloses that a "handwritten asterisk on the closing documents" directed that $4.5 million, $4.5 million, $250,000 and $250,000 of the payment on the smaller second deal, with total purchase price of $92 million, be directed (respectively) to Conrad Black, David Radler, John Boultbee and Peter Atkinson. The request, by Mark Kipnis, to divert more than 10% of the sale price to four additional accounts is what got Mr. Reed's attention to the arrangement, especially given the fact that the total non-compete payment allocated for the $92 million sale, in 2000, was $3 million.
The Financial Post report concludes with this excerpt from the cross-examination: "'[The allocation of the non-compete-agreement proceeds] was none of your business,' lawyer Ed Genson said, and Reed agreed."
According to this Bloomberg report, Mr. Reed also testified that "Kipnis wanted the non-compete agreements from Hollinger Inc. and the individuals added them to the deal at no additional cost to Community Newspaper Holdings." This testimony sounds like it was elicited under direct examination; it makes the payment split look like a siphoning of sale proceeds from Hollinger International. In addition, "Reed said [under direct examination] he refused to wire the money because there was no provision for individual payments to the Hollinger executives in the contract."
Also: a lawyer in Whitby, Ontario, takes a crack at explaining what a non-compete agreement is.
Speculative Trivia
that may be applicable to Donald Trump's advice to Conrad Black, given last night, to "hang tough." There was a song by the group "New Kids On The Block" called "Hangin' Tough," released as a single in 1989. One of the members of New Kids was the older brother of Mark Wahlberg, Donnie.
The lyrics to "Hangin' Tough" are here.
The lyrics to "Hangin' Tough" are here.
Media Roundup: Buckle-Down And The Donald
Week 2 of the trial is about to begin, and here are the stories that are on the Internet about it:
1. A brief review of week 1 from "To The Center."
2. The latest report from Peter Worthington, which recounts the time, back in 1983, when he himself was a client of Eddie Greenspan, as part of a team of Tory delegates that were shut out by the party. Mentions one of Csr. Greenspan's rules for his clients: "no ad-libbing."
3. [Links, and intros, to Ms. Maurino's coverage has been updated in the more recent post, "Monday's action in the Conrad Black trial."]
4. The Hamilton Spectator has a re-cap, credited to the Associated Press, that seems to be a distillation of Ms. Maurino's latest report.
5. Doug Sanders of the Globe and Mail discusses the fall of Conrad Black in London society, chalking it up to schadenfreude that seems to have gone too far at this point; it references Lord Black's recent, and unwebbed, article in the Tatler. Mr. Sanders' report begins with "When Conrad Black's Chicago fraud trial becomes a topic of discussion among his friends, ex-friends, hangers-on and onetime guests, the Americans tend to mention the big houses and the private jets, the Canadians the high-flying corporate and political connections. But in England, characteristically, it's all about the booze."
6. Another article in the Globe and Mail, by Paul Waldie, relates the status of the Chicago Tribune's motion to have the identities of the jurors released to the public. It mentions the exposure of the two jurors in the George Ryan case, which is currently under appeal. The Province also has a write-up on this issue, available to subscribers only.
7. A quadruple, plus a later addition, about Donald Trump's advice, for Mr. Black to "hang tough:" from the Ottawa Citizen, a report that's available to subscribers only; from the Calgary Sun, a complete report, with a note on the current iteration of the Trump-O'Donnell feud; from the National Post, a report on the entire Learning Annex session that Mr. Trump is part of, with a note of an potential (as of now) feud between Mr. Trump and Toronto real-estate developer Harry Stinson; and, from the Toronto Star, a write-up that mentions the Blacks attending his 2005 wedding to Melania Knauss. The Star report has a more complete report on Mr. Trump's put-down of Ms. O'Donnell.
This report from the National Post's Financial Post has a little more detail on that potential feud, or just plain public ribbing, between Mr. Trump and Mr. Stinson. Both are partners in a to-be-built condo development in Toronto.
8. A two-paragraph mention of Conrad Black at the end of a Toronto Star discussion of the Economist turning its praise of Canada to a pan, which brings up Mr. Black's tendency to object to the wrong kind of (public) defense (from a non-lawyer.)
9. Crikey is back with more "Trial Noir" coverage. Available to subscribers only, but a free trial is offered.
Finally: Conrad Black's media defense is mentioned in contrast to the condemnation that Bishop Gilbert Deya has received in Kenya, by a "a Barrister & Solicitor in Toronto, Canada" named Miguna Miguna. Webbed at the Kenya Times.
1. A brief review of week 1 from "To The Center."
2. The latest report from Peter Worthington, which recounts the time, back in 1983, when he himself was a client of Eddie Greenspan, as part of a team of Tory delegates that were shut out by the party. Mentions one of Csr. Greenspan's rules for his clients: "no ad-libbing."
3. [Links, and intros, to Ms. Maurino's coverage has been updated in the more recent post, "Monday's action in the Conrad Black trial."]
4. The Hamilton Spectator has a re-cap, credited to the Associated Press, that seems to be a distillation of Ms. Maurino's latest report.
5. Doug Sanders of the Globe and Mail discusses the fall of Conrad Black in London society, chalking it up to schadenfreude that seems to have gone too far at this point; it references Lord Black's recent, and unwebbed, article in the Tatler. Mr. Sanders' report begins with "When Conrad Black's Chicago fraud trial becomes a topic of discussion among his friends, ex-friends, hangers-on and onetime guests, the Americans tend to mention the big houses and the private jets, the Canadians the high-flying corporate and political connections. But in England, characteristically, it's all about the booze."
6. Another article in the Globe and Mail, by Paul Waldie, relates the status of the Chicago Tribune's motion to have the identities of the jurors released to the public. It mentions the exposure of the two jurors in the George Ryan case, which is currently under appeal. The Province also has a write-up on this issue, available to subscribers only.
7. A quadruple, plus a later addition, about Donald Trump's advice, for Mr. Black to "hang tough:" from the Ottawa Citizen, a report that's available to subscribers only; from the Calgary Sun, a complete report, with a note on the current iteration of the Trump-O'Donnell feud; from the National Post, a report on the entire Learning Annex session that Mr. Trump is part of, with a note of an potential (as of now) feud between Mr. Trump and Toronto real-estate developer Harry Stinson; and, from the Toronto Star, a write-up that mentions the Blacks attending his 2005 wedding to Melania Knauss. The Star report has a more complete report on Mr. Trump's put-down of Ms. O'Donnell.
This report from the National Post's Financial Post has a little more detail on that potential feud, or just plain public ribbing, between Mr. Trump and Mr. Stinson. Both are partners in a to-be-built condo development in Toronto.
8. A two-paragraph mention of Conrad Black at the end of a Toronto Star discussion of the Economist turning its praise of Canada to a pan, which brings up Mr. Black's tendency to object to the wrong kind of (public) defense (from a non-lawyer.)
9. Crikey is back with more "Trial Noir" coverage. Available to subscribers only, but a free trial is offered.
Finally: Conrad Black's media defense is mentioned in contrast to the condemnation that Bishop Gilbert Deya has received in Kenya, by a "a Barrister & Solicitor in Toronto, Canada" named Miguna Miguna. Webbed at the Kenya Times.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Thanks to "The Library Girl"
A fellow Blogspot blogger, "The Library Girl," has put a link to this blog on her own, which is much appreciated on this end. Her own blog is a personal one, but she also has two reading-oriented blogs, "The Library Girl's Library School Blog" and the more book-centric "Reading Through The Eyes Of A Youth Librarian," which focuses on graphic novels.
The Verdict: First Week Recap
The bulk of tonight's episode of The Verdict was a re-run of interview clips from the past week. The first re-shown segment was the interview with Joanne Walters, eyewitness to the Barbara Black flare-up, from last Monday's episode.
The second trial-related segment (the third one shown) was a repeat of the interview of Richard Kurland, a Canadian immigration lawyer who was on to discuss the legal hurdles Conrad Black would face if he were convicted. Csr. Kurlin said that, at present, Mr. Black's application to regain his Canadian citizenship was on hold, and even if it got moving again, it would take months to process, given the high-profile nature of the case. He offered the opinion that Mr. Black, if convicted, would have no option other than to serve his time in the United States.
The third trial-related segment featured Jacob Frenkel, brought on to discuss those thirteen boxes taken out of 10 Toronto Street by Conrad Black. He opined that what was in them will be less relevant than the fact that they were removed at all. (A Canadian court will decide on the legality of that removal.) Both this interview and the one with Csr. Kurland were on Tuesday's episode.
The fourth and final segment was a four-way discussion with a triumvirate of journalists; the subject was Alana Black, Mr. Black's daughter. It aired on Monday.
Ms. Todd's "closing argument" was new, though, and ended with a brief scoring of the two sides. She described the trial as a mix between the “memorable and mundane.” The juror who derailed the trial did so through getting the day wrong. The judge herself, Amy St. Eve, has proven to be one of the stars to watch. The jurors seem to enjoy their lessons on high finance. The prosecution witnesses so far were methodical, but cross-examination revealed, in her word, “inconsistencies” in each of their testimonies. According to Ms. Todd, as of now, it’s “advantage Black.”
[The latest episode is broadbanded, after a reasonable webbing time, until it's replaced by the next one. Once this re-cap episode is up, it'll stay up until Tuesday night, because Monday's episode has been bumped off by the Quebec election coverage.]
The second trial-related segment (the third one shown) was a repeat of the interview of Richard Kurland, a Canadian immigration lawyer who was on to discuss the legal hurdles Conrad Black would face if he were convicted. Csr. Kurlin said that, at present, Mr. Black's application to regain his Canadian citizenship was on hold, and even if it got moving again, it would take months to process, given the high-profile nature of the case. He offered the opinion that Mr. Black, if convicted, would have no option other than to serve his time in the United States.
The third trial-related segment featured Jacob Frenkel, brought on to discuss those thirteen boxes taken out of 10 Toronto Street by Conrad Black. He opined that what was in them will be less relevant than the fact that they were removed at all. (A Canadian court will decide on the legality of that removal.) Both this interview and the one with Csr. Kurland were on Tuesday's episode.
The fourth and final segment was a four-way discussion with a triumvirate of journalists; the subject was Alana Black, Mr. Black's daughter. It aired on Monday.
Ms. Todd's "closing argument" was new, though, and ended with a brief scoring of the two sides. She described the trial as a mix between the “memorable and mundane.” The juror who derailed the trial did so through getting the day wrong. The judge herself, Amy St. Eve, has proven to be one of the stars to watch. The jurors seem to enjoy their lessons on high finance. The prosecution witnesses so far were methodical, but cross-examination revealed, in her word, “inconsistencies” in each of their testimonies. According to Ms. Todd, as of now, it’s “advantage Black.”
[The latest episode is broadbanded, after a reasonable webbing time, until it's replaced by the next one. Once this re-cap episode is up, it'll stay up until Tuesday night, because Monday's episode has been bumped off by the Quebec election coverage.]
Conrad Black Receives Open Success Advice...
...from none other than The Donald. Mr. Trump recommends that Mr. Black stay "tough," an important word for Donald Trump. He attributed the dissolution, and early death, of his elder brother Fred Trump, Jr. to a lack of toughness. See his brief chapter on his elder brother in Trump: Surviving at the Top.
[An early CP report, later picked up by other sources, was posted by CBC.ca News. CTV News has the same story posted here. This part of the post was backdated because I missed both reports when they were first posted.]
He still hasn't talked about the trial, though.
[An early CP report, later picked up by other sources, was posted by CBC.ca News. CTV News has the same story posted here. This part of the post was backdated because I missed both reports when they were first posted.]
He still hasn't talked about the trial, though.
A Long Summary Of Barbara Amiel's "Confessions," Part 1
This summary makes no pretensions to either literary or scholarly merit; essentially, it's a long book review, and not a very meritious one at that. I wrote it because Confessions is long out of print, and is not easy to find. Since it was an autobiographical work, it provides a detailed glimpse into Mrs. Black's mind at the time she wrote it, at the close of the 1970s, when she was still Barbara Amiel and married to George Jonas. I have, of course, skipped over many details in the book, even though this summary is only of the first ten chapters of it. Page references are for the 1981 paperback edition, published by Totem Books.
Two webbed biographies of Mrs. Black are linked to in this entry.
Confessions opens with a July 3, 1978 lunch, in mid-Toronto, in which her writings are questioned about by the rabbi who officiated at her wedding with George Jonas. That rabbi was a member of the Ontario Human Rights Commission at the time, and it was a “lunching” approved by the Commission itself.
As a child in London, England, she had learned that the root cause of World War 2 was racism. She counterpoints this with a September, 1977 interview with John Tyndall, then-leader of the National Front, who declares that it was fought to save the British Empire. Despite what she was told about the defeat of racism, though, she heard “jewing” used casually, and the word “n***er” used instructionally at the school she went to, North London Collegiate. (It was run by Anglicans when she was there.) She was sized up as her fellow schoolmates as a Communist type.
[On this webpage, you'll find the term 'n***er brown" used in the School Uniform/ Girls/Winter part of the 1959 "Wolverhampton Municipal Grammar School Prospectus." The city of Wolverhampton is near Birmingham, in the West Midlands. Thanks to Dr. Dawg for finding this item.]
She was actually looked after by a London Communist, Mr. Sedley, who proceeded to bring her into the CP's orbit, through entertainment as well as instruction. One of her uncles was a Communist; another, her uncle Bernard, was a Maoist. Her non-immediate relatives and near-ancestors were, broadly speaking, left-wing. Her father, who made colonel while serving in the U.K. army in World War 2, was a left-Labourite. (He committed suicide in 1956.) Because the Liberal Party was the underdog in the 1950 election, she plumped for the Liberals at school, but soon became a social democrat. She explains this in Confessions as a natural result of her upbringing, one permeated with the belief that socialism and the future went hand-in-hand, which she treats as her childhood’s conditioning. She won a scholarship to a posh British boarding school, but couldn’t go because her mother decided to move to Canada, in November 1952. This move was undertook for the sake of her stepfather, an electrician without university training, whose prospects were limited in the U.K.
The job promised to her stepfather proved not to be there. At first, her family was so poor, they had to fend on one meal a day; she and her sisters used to fantasize about wealth that would allow one to eat when one pleased. They qualified for public housing in Roxborough Park. Life without government-provided heath care was harder in Canada back then, but the British NHS doctors were brusque, with a monopolist’s attitude, and even surly at times. Given her socialist pre-conditioning, the state of Ontario health care, pre-OHIP, was a pleasant surprise. “Patients were treated like clients, not liabilities” by Canadian health-care practitioners (p. 29) –even in the charity wards. A memorable quote, from p. 31: “It is, after all, the community that has to bear the cost of the health care….Some advocates have used [this argument] in the campaign, as yet embryonic, to outlaw cigarette-smoking. It may yet be invoked to restrict the consumption of fatty foods or to introduce compulsory jogging.” [Remember: this was first published in 1980.]
At fourteen, she stayed in Hamilton when the rest of her family moved to St. Catherine’s, and tried to fend for herself, renting a room in a garage mechanic's house. She resolved to be an editorial columnist, writing left-wing editorials to the masses, but Amiel notes wryly that her younger self pursued opportunity in a way that she, at the time, would argue was closed to everyone except for the elite. At fifteen, she got a job in a drugstore where her older schoolmates, from Delta Secondary School, hung out. She got a better job, moved into a basement apartment in a house owned by a colourful Polish-Canadian family, and began hanging out with the “wrong crowd,” a gang composed partially of natives. Her intellectuality didn’t matter to them; she and they got along fine. Infected cuts gotten at a third job, in an E.D. Smith packing plant, got her re-united, temporarily, with her family. She experienced small-town Canada as humane, and saw Orwell’s “ordinary decency” in the working class. (She also describes Canadians as informal, but inhibited.) Help was there, but it was given on a spot basis. She notes that formalized problem-finding, when done in the poorer or more vulnerable parts of the world, becomes, to an extent, a self-fulfilling prophecy, and drains away a necessary stoicism from the people in those groups. While still at high school in St. Catherine’s, she exhibited a precocious flair for journalism. Before going to the University of Toronto, she heard David Lewis speak to a small group of supporters, including her, but believed at the time that he wasn’t left-wing enough.
She got seriously interested in Communism in 1962, in part because of a date with a pro-Communist fellow attending Balliol College, Oxford. Her “godfather” and his family, whom she re-visited while in London to claim an inheritance from her deceased grandfather’s estate, got her a ticket to the World Communist Youth Festival [formally, the "World Festival of Youth and Students"] in Helsinki, Finland, one she herself had to pay for. The trip package included a three-week tour of East Germany, Warsaw and Leningrad and started in East Berlin. Before and while traveling on the train, she saw sights that planted later doubts in her mind – especially the encounter between she and her group’s translator in East Berlin, Gertie, who begged young Barbara to get her out of there. Gertie later conveyed the impression to two East German policemen, or soldiers, that she had been taken advantage of by a foreign “fascist” – namely, Miss Amiel herself. (pp. 49-50.) While at a stop in East Germany, she got her picture on the front page of an East German paper with an eight-year-old “Young Pioneer” giving her handicrafts. While at the conference itself, she disclosed the less-than-paradisical sights she saw while there, including Gertie’s tears, in the spirit of self-criticism. No-one gave her the normal round of applause afterwards. She left an anti-totalitarian. After she got back to Canada, the papers were full of stories about the RCMP opening dossiers on Communist student activists, which frightened her into asking the Member of Parliament in her riding, Liberal Perry Ryan, if she herself was under surveillance. He didn’t answer, but informed her that if she was worried, she should become an RCMP informant, which would make her safe. This answer “confounded” (p. 55) her, as such practices seemed closer to Soviet practice than liberal ideals.
After becoming addicted to codeine pills, and receiving help from the Addiction Research Foundation for it because they ended up inflaming a pre-existing anxiety condition that included claustrophobia, she moved into the trendy circuit in Montreal as of 1963. Shortly after her arrival there, she saw regular use of harder drugs, including heroin. She group-experimented with cannabis, but found, after trying marijuana, that it aggravated her anxiety condition. Being put on an anti-depressant by an endocrinologist, at a dose level normally used for seriously disturbed people, was one of the experiences that led her to reflect that left-liberals often label beliefs, or hunches, as “scientific truth,” (p. 65) with statistical correlations often used as evidence. The ultimate result, if such an ideology prevails universally, is a society where all blame is externalized.
By this time, she had gotten a job with the CBC, where she discovered that truth was secondary to trendiness, as mediated by a left-liberal worldview encased in the humanities and cultural anthropology. She also learned that her fellow government employees were, as a rule, untouchable. By 1967, she was on-camera, although her delivery was remote at first because of the anti-depressant’s effect. She grew into the job later, though. As a result, she was assigned to gather data for a “scientific” prediction of the winner of the 1968 Liberal convention, which proved to be difficult to get because of delegate unavailability and/or reticence. She discloses in the book that, as a result of pressure from the producer of the show and also her boss, she made the results up. She did predict the winner, Pierre Trudeau, but the older Amiel expresses qualms about the fast one that her younger self pulled back then. Dismissing the possibility that her “little fraudulent poll” (p. 77) changed the results, she nevertheless discloses that she “crowned” the CBC staff’s choice, and notes how easy it was to swim with the left-lib “syndrome” (p. 78,) one more pervasive than a mere conspiracy. It prevailed in the CBC, and in the Canadian media generally. A then-young Henry Champ, then with CTV’s W5, suffered on account of this mindset, when he deviated from the acceptable line by questioning the appropriateness of the World Council of Churches’ support of Rhodesian guerrillas. (p. 80.) She notes that the American media has a greater diversity of viewpoints.
She herself went on an extensive working trip to America with a director boyfriend, George Bloomfield, starting in late 1968, and met: Ann-Margret; Marlo Thomas; and, the first American woman to bull-fight, who was the subject of an Amiel interview for the CBC Radio program Matinee. Amiel was still there in 1970, at the time of the Kent State shootings, and found legitimate outrage, over the killing of the four student protestors, mixed in with an already-established indulgence for left-wing student activists. These activists were not above using intimidation tactics that included the physical variety. The pervasive indulgence in the university of left-wing activists was accompanied by a coldness towards any conservative student activists at the time. The intimidation was also turned on centrist liberals as well; the need for them to stay meek was one of the crucibles for mixing together the present neoconservative movement. (It almost certainly was for Mrs. Black’s own brand of conservatism.) At the time, it was trendy amongst the CBC staff to put American draft resistors, or dodgers, on camera; at about that time. Native Canadian activists got airplay out of what could be called “competitive guilting” by Canadian left-liberals.
While down in the United States, she saw that “poverty” in the U.S. of A. was more affluent than what she had been led to believe, courtesy of Canadian media reports and (of course) her own then-current biases. In October 1970, Jane Fonda called Trudeau a “fascist” to her face, as a criticism of him invoking the War Measures Act after securing Parliamentary consent to do so. At the time. Ms. Fonda's criticism prompted nationalistic feelings in Miss Amiel, but ironic half-agreement later from Mrs. Amiel Jonas.
While living the life of a left-wing dinner hostess in London, further doubts crept into her mind as she saw that the “workers” seemed the most resentful of the influx of black immigrants to Britain. As of that time (1971,) she also saw that her Maoist uncle, Bernard, was unaverse to turning a few bucks his way through real-estate acquisition. He had already made a modest fortune through running an import-export business for goods from China, and he was quick to echo the “Chinese exceptionalism” argument for the claim that China was not really totalitarian. She and her boyfriend returned to Montreal in the fall of 1971, to find that Mao’s China was “Very Hot.” (p. 107) Shortly afterwards, she and Mr. Bloomfield split up. George Jonas, her second husband, was soon to enter her life.
Part 2 of the summary, which will concentrate on the rest of Confessions, is here.
Two webbed biographies of Mrs. Black are linked to in this entry.
Confessions opens with a July 3, 1978 lunch, in mid-Toronto, in which her writings are questioned about by the rabbi who officiated at her wedding with George Jonas. That rabbi was a member of the Ontario Human Rights Commission at the time, and it was a “lunching” approved by the Commission itself.
As a child in London, England, she had learned that the root cause of World War 2 was racism. She counterpoints this with a September, 1977 interview with John Tyndall, then-leader of the National Front, who declares that it was fought to save the British Empire. Despite what she was told about the defeat of racism, though, she heard “jewing” used casually, and the word “n***er” used instructionally at the school she went to, North London Collegiate. (It was run by Anglicans when she was there.) She was sized up as her fellow schoolmates as a Communist type.
[On this webpage, you'll find the term 'n***er brown" used in the School Uniform/ Girls/Winter part of the 1959 "Wolverhampton Municipal Grammar School Prospectus." The city of Wolverhampton is near Birmingham, in the West Midlands. Thanks to Dr. Dawg for finding this item.]
She was actually looked after by a London Communist, Mr. Sedley, who proceeded to bring her into the CP's orbit, through entertainment as well as instruction. One of her uncles was a Communist; another, her uncle Bernard, was a Maoist. Her non-immediate relatives and near-ancestors were, broadly speaking, left-wing. Her father, who made colonel while serving in the U.K. army in World War 2, was a left-Labourite. (He committed suicide in 1956.) Because the Liberal Party was the underdog in the 1950 election, she plumped for the Liberals at school, but soon became a social democrat. She explains this in Confessions as a natural result of her upbringing, one permeated with the belief that socialism and the future went hand-in-hand, which she treats as her childhood’s conditioning. She won a scholarship to a posh British boarding school, but couldn’t go because her mother decided to move to Canada, in November 1952. This move was undertook for the sake of her stepfather, an electrician without university training, whose prospects were limited in the U.K.
The job promised to her stepfather proved not to be there. At first, her family was so poor, they had to fend on one meal a day; she and her sisters used to fantasize about wealth that would allow one to eat when one pleased. They qualified for public housing in Roxborough Park. Life without government-provided heath care was harder in Canada back then, but the British NHS doctors were brusque, with a monopolist’s attitude, and even surly at times. Given her socialist pre-conditioning, the state of Ontario health care, pre-OHIP, was a pleasant surprise. “Patients were treated like clients, not liabilities” by Canadian health-care practitioners (p. 29) –even in the charity wards. A memorable quote, from p. 31: “It is, after all, the community that has to bear the cost of the health care….Some advocates have used [this argument] in the campaign, as yet embryonic, to outlaw cigarette-smoking. It may yet be invoked to restrict the consumption of fatty foods or to introduce compulsory jogging.” [Remember: this was first published in 1980.]
At fourteen, she stayed in Hamilton when the rest of her family moved to St. Catherine’s, and tried to fend for herself, renting a room in a garage mechanic's house. She resolved to be an editorial columnist, writing left-wing editorials to the masses, but Amiel notes wryly that her younger self pursued opportunity in a way that she, at the time, would argue was closed to everyone except for the elite. At fifteen, she got a job in a drugstore where her older schoolmates, from Delta Secondary School, hung out. She got a better job, moved into a basement apartment in a house owned by a colourful Polish-Canadian family, and began hanging out with the “wrong crowd,” a gang composed partially of natives. Her intellectuality didn’t matter to them; she and they got along fine. Infected cuts gotten at a third job, in an E.D. Smith packing plant, got her re-united, temporarily, with her family. She experienced small-town Canada as humane, and saw Orwell’s “ordinary decency” in the working class. (She also describes Canadians as informal, but inhibited.) Help was there, but it was given on a spot basis. She notes that formalized problem-finding, when done in the poorer or more vulnerable parts of the world, becomes, to an extent, a self-fulfilling prophecy, and drains away a necessary stoicism from the people in those groups. While still at high school in St. Catherine’s, she exhibited a precocious flair for journalism. Before going to the University of Toronto, she heard David Lewis speak to a small group of supporters, including her, but believed at the time that he wasn’t left-wing enough.
She got seriously interested in Communism in 1962, in part because of a date with a pro-Communist fellow attending Balliol College, Oxford. Her “godfather” and his family, whom she re-visited while in London to claim an inheritance from her deceased grandfather’s estate, got her a ticket to the World Communist Youth Festival [formally, the "World Festival of Youth and Students"] in Helsinki, Finland, one she herself had to pay for. The trip package included a three-week tour of East Germany, Warsaw and Leningrad and started in East Berlin. Before and while traveling on the train, she saw sights that planted later doubts in her mind – especially the encounter between she and her group’s translator in East Berlin, Gertie, who begged young Barbara to get her out of there. Gertie later conveyed the impression to two East German policemen, or soldiers, that she had been taken advantage of by a foreign “fascist” – namely, Miss Amiel herself. (pp. 49-50.) While at a stop in East Germany, she got her picture on the front page of an East German paper with an eight-year-old “Young Pioneer” giving her handicrafts. While at the conference itself, she disclosed the less-than-paradisical sights she saw while there, including Gertie’s tears, in the spirit of self-criticism. No-one gave her the normal round of applause afterwards. She left an anti-totalitarian. After she got back to Canada, the papers were full of stories about the RCMP opening dossiers on Communist student activists, which frightened her into asking the Member of Parliament in her riding, Liberal Perry Ryan, if she herself was under surveillance. He didn’t answer, but informed her that if she was worried, she should become an RCMP informant, which would make her safe. This answer “confounded” (p. 55) her, as such practices seemed closer to Soviet practice than liberal ideals.
After becoming addicted to codeine pills, and receiving help from the Addiction Research Foundation for it because they ended up inflaming a pre-existing anxiety condition that included claustrophobia, she moved into the trendy circuit in Montreal as of 1963. Shortly after her arrival there, she saw regular use of harder drugs, including heroin. She group-experimented with cannabis, but found, after trying marijuana, that it aggravated her anxiety condition. Being put on an anti-depressant by an endocrinologist, at a dose level normally used for seriously disturbed people, was one of the experiences that led her to reflect that left-liberals often label beliefs, or hunches, as “scientific truth,” (p. 65) with statistical correlations often used as evidence. The ultimate result, if such an ideology prevails universally, is a society where all blame is externalized.
By this time, she had gotten a job with the CBC, where she discovered that truth was secondary to trendiness, as mediated by a left-liberal worldview encased in the humanities and cultural anthropology. She also learned that her fellow government employees were, as a rule, untouchable. By 1967, she was on-camera, although her delivery was remote at first because of the anti-depressant’s effect. She grew into the job later, though. As a result, she was assigned to gather data for a “scientific” prediction of the winner of the 1968 Liberal convention, which proved to be difficult to get because of delegate unavailability and/or reticence. She discloses in the book that, as a result of pressure from the producer of the show and also her boss, she made the results up. She did predict the winner, Pierre Trudeau, but the older Amiel expresses qualms about the fast one that her younger self pulled back then. Dismissing the possibility that her “little fraudulent poll” (p. 77) changed the results, she nevertheless discloses that she “crowned” the CBC staff’s choice, and notes how easy it was to swim with the left-lib “syndrome” (p. 78,) one more pervasive than a mere conspiracy. It prevailed in the CBC, and in the Canadian media generally. A then-young Henry Champ, then with CTV’s W5, suffered on account of this mindset, when he deviated from the acceptable line by questioning the appropriateness of the World Council of Churches’ support of Rhodesian guerrillas. (p. 80.) She notes that the American media has a greater diversity of viewpoints.
She herself went on an extensive working trip to America with a director boyfriend, George Bloomfield, starting in late 1968, and met: Ann-Margret; Marlo Thomas; and, the first American woman to bull-fight, who was the subject of an Amiel interview for the CBC Radio program Matinee. Amiel was still there in 1970, at the time of the Kent State shootings, and found legitimate outrage, over the killing of the four student protestors, mixed in with an already-established indulgence for left-wing student activists. These activists were not above using intimidation tactics that included the physical variety. The pervasive indulgence in the university of left-wing activists was accompanied by a coldness towards any conservative student activists at the time. The intimidation was also turned on centrist liberals as well; the need for them to stay meek was one of the crucibles for mixing together the present neoconservative movement. (It almost certainly was for Mrs. Black’s own brand of conservatism.) At the time, it was trendy amongst the CBC staff to put American draft resistors, or dodgers, on camera; at about that time. Native Canadian activists got airplay out of what could be called “competitive guilting” by Canadian left-liberals.
While down in the United States, she saw that “poverty” in the U.S. of A. was more affluent than what she had been led to believe, courtesy of Canadian media reports and (of course) her own then-current biases. In October 1970, Jane Fonda called Trudeau a “fascist” to her face, as a criticism of him invoking the War Measures Act after securing Parliamentary consent to do so. At the time. Ms. Fonda's criticism prompted nationalistic feelings in Miss Amiel, but ironic half-agreement later from Mrs. Amiel Jonas.
While living the life of a left-wing dinner hostess in London, further doubts crept into her mind as she saw that the “workers” seemed the most resentful of the influx of black immigrants to Britain. As of that time (1971,) she also saw that her Maoist uncle, Bernard, was unaverse to turning a few bucks his way through real-estate acquisition. He had already made a modest fortune through running an import-export business for goods from China, and he was quick to echo the “Chinese exceptionalism” argument for the claim that China was not really totalitarian. She and her boyfriend returned to Montreal in the fall of 1971, to find that Mao’s China was “Very Hot.” (p. 107) Shortly afterwards, she and Mr. Bloomfield split up. George Jonas, her second husband, was soon to enter her life.
Part 2 of the summary, which will concentrate on the rest of Confessions, is here.
Conrad Black Trial: Liberal Bloggers' Take
There have been quite a few posts on liberal blogs about the trial of Conrad Black, which typically are on the comeuppance side. Here's a sample:
1. From "Liberal Burblings," a recommendation to enjoy the trial for all it's worth.
2. Applause for Naomi Klein from "Ten Percent." A Canadian left-wing blog has posted her Nation article here.
3. "The Vanity Press" portrays Conrad Black as a crybaby, a sentiment echoed in "The Truffle," which credits "Badtux" for calling attention to it. So does "skippy" in a quick post.
4. From "Relentlessly Progressive Economics," a re-post of an Eric Reguly article, with pre-comment, under the title "The Trial of Lord Vader, I Mean, Black."
5. A brief mention of another Naomi Klein article, for the "Comment is Free" section of the Guardian Online, in "The People's Voice." Ms. Klein's piece drew lotsa comments.
6. "The Library Girl" asks what all the fuss over Conrad Black is about.
7. A long, analytical post on Conrad Black's promotion of the "Anglosphere." It contains copious quotes from two articles, one being Ms. Klein's. Posted by "wufnik" of "BazzFazz".
8. Intro to two Naomi Klein articles in "Poetic Touch."
9. A March 7 post from "Peace, Order and Good Government, Eh?" that reviewes the trial coverage by the Globe and Mail and the National Post, as of then. Memorable line from the entry: "It pains me ever to pay a compliment to the National Post, but their reporter did lead by dropping a name that actually matters to this case: Patrick Fitzgerald."
10. An entry from the blog "Corridors of My Mind, Objects Of My Interest," which is carefully neutral with regard to the outcome. It's actually anti-mainstream-media - specifically, Canadian media.
11. Quill and Quire has a somewhat sarcastic entry about Conrad Black's new biography of Richard Nixon, The Invincible Quest
12. From "TK," a fellow Torontonian: an entry about Mark Steyn's coverage of the trial. The author of "TK," Nathan Whitlock, pours on the mockery in that entry.
13. From "Pete Lit:" an entry gleefully anticipates Conrad Black being judged by twelve ordinary folks. Uses Ms. Klein's Nation article as a takeoff.
14. From "ataxingmatter," an entry that advocates of higher taxes for rich people, which uses Mr. Black's, as well as Kenneth Lay's, conduct as one of several justifications for doing so.
15. From "FireDogLake:" Conrad Black dumped on as one of the patrons of neoconservatism. Starts off with an attempt to be patronizing to him.
To move away from blogs, the magazine Monday reports that Conrad Black is a past recipient of one or more "Piggy" award(s).
----------
Two posts relating the Conrad Black trial to the Sarbanes-Oxley act are here and here.
1. From "Liberal Burblings," a recommendation to enjoy the trial for all it's worth.
2. Applause for Naomi Klein from "Ten Percent." A Canadian left-wing blog has posted her Nation article here.
3. "The Vanity Press" portrays Conrad Black as a crybaby, a sentiment echoed in "The Truffle," which credits "Badtux" for calling attention to it. So does "skippy" in a quick post.
4. From "Relentlessly Progressive Economics," a re-post of an Eric Reguly article, with pre-comment, under the title "The Trial of Lord Vader, I Mean, Black."
5. A brief mention of another Naomi Klein article, for the "Comment is Free" section of the Guardian Online, in "The People's Voice." Ms. Klein's piece drew lotsa comments.
6. "The Library Girl" asks what all the fuss over Conrad Black is about.
7. A long, analytical post on Conrad Black's promotion of the "Anglosphere." It contains copious quotes from two articles, one being Ms. Klein's. Posted by "wufnik" of "BazzFazz".
8. Intro to two Naomi Klein articles in "Poetic Touch."
9. A March 7 post from "Peace, Order and Good Government, Eh?" that reviewes the trial coverage by the Globe and Mail and the National Post, as of then. Memorable line from the entry: "It pains me ever to pay a compliment to the National Post, but their reporter did lead by dropping a name that actually matters to this case: Patrick Fitzgerald."
10. An entry from the blog "Corridors of My Mind, Objects Of My Interest," which is carefully neutral with regard to the outcome. It's actually anti-mainstream-media - specifically, Canadian media.
11. Quill and Quire has a somewhat sarcastic entry about Conrad Black's new biography of Richard Nixon, The Invincible Quest
12. From "TK," a fellow Torontonian: an entry about Mark Steyn's coverage of the trial. The author of "TK," Nathan Whitlock, pours on the mockery in that entry.
13. From "Pete Lit:" an entry gleefully anticipates Conrad Black being judged by twelve ordinary folks. Uses Ms. Klein's Nation article as a takeoff.
14. From "ataxingmatter," an entry that advocates of higher taxes for rich people, which uses Mr. Black's, as well as Kenneth Lay's, conduct as one of several justifications for doing so.
15. From "FireDogLake:" Conrad Black dumped on as one of the patrons of neoconservatism. Starts off with an attempt to be patronizing to him.
To move away from blogs, the magazine Monday reports that Conrad Black is a past recipient of one or more "Piggy" award(s).
----------
Two posts relating the Conrad Black trial to the Sarbanes-Oxley act are here and here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)