Fall is the season for 5K runs. The weather is nice... not too hot... and very amateur runners like me can hit the roads to raise money for causes.

Yesterday, I ran the first of two 5K courses over which I will be sweating this season. The Mission Hill Road Race, which starts and finishes at Kevin Fitzgerald park in Boston, is a fun community oriented run. The course is not easy, though. True to its namesake, the Mission*Hill* Road Race has no less than three hills, and two steep downhills. Clearly, what I enjoy about the run is the strong community feel.

At the event were City Councilor Mike Ross and City Council President Maureen Feeney, Councilor Michael Flaherty, and State Rep Jeffrey Sanchez. Also in attendance John Connolly, who is running for City Council and has my support : )

I was pretty happy with my time. It's a full two minutes better than when I finished two years ago. Though I did tell Councilor Ross I would beat him and came up short.

Next up for me is the Welles Crowther 5K, the Red Bandanna Run, which is held at Boston College. It benefits the trust created by friends of 9/11 hero Welles Crowther, who was tragically killed in the twin towers but only after saving many. (According to those he saved, Welles wore a Red Bandana while ushering those to safetly.) The run is scheduled for October 20.

I am supporting John Connolly for Boston City Council.

Some random notes:

** I was in D.C. on Tuesday for work and managed to squeeze in an hour to see Amanda over lunch. Actually she squeezed in thirty minutes to see me. It's amazing how things get busy right after Labor Day. I had one meeting in the morning and then had a few hours before my return flight to Boston. It was the second time I had seen Amanda this year. She looked great!

** This past Sunday I went to see Jimmy Buffett at Gillette stadium. Random question: How many times do you have to see someone before you are considered a "groupie." I have seen Buffett three times now-- all three up here in Boston. I think I am right on the cusp of being considered a "groupie." Now, for Bon Jovi, there's no question. I have seen him like six times.

** At the invite of one of my clients, I signed up for Facebook a week ago. What's interested is Facebook is starting to get a lot of attention in my industry as a way to connect executives and even reporters. Reporters like it because to pitch on Facebook, you have to pitch in public. The funny part is Facebook was originally set up for college kids, so some of the features are still geared toward that audience. For example, when you become "friends" with someone, it asks you how you know your friend. One of the options is "We hooked up." 'nuff said.

I am off to a wedding today in New Hampshire as Amy Mok's escort. Annmarie and Peter are also going, and I should have pics this week to post.

Finally, a hearty welcome to everyone who moved into Boston and Beacon Hill last week. The City did a superb job throwing away trash put on the streets near my apartment fairly quickly after the trash was put out. And when you're moving in a neighborhood as small as this one, the debris is inevitable.

My nephew Frank is featured in today's New London (Conn.) Day. It's a feature story on the sights off of Conn. Route 169, which is a state highway that starts in Norwich. You can also see my brother Mark (Frank's dad) in the picture.

Kristie Butts, Lisbon, owner, cuts the hair of Frank Levanto, 2, Lisbon, as he sits on his dad's (Mark) lap. Kristie has been cutting Frank's hair since his first haircut. The entire family comes in to get haircuts about every four weeks. Hair Salon, Taftville.... (Adena Stevens/staff photographer) from New London Day, August 31, 2007. "Busy Days in the Quiet Corner"

Here's the link to the full story in the paper:
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=1bf210e5-961a-4480-bd75-71bb82b9f57e

Yanks are hosting Boston this week. I watched game one of the series last night. While it was on ESPN2, that feed was blacked out in Boston, so I had to watch it on NESNHD. Since I have been watching the Yanks all year on the MLB package, it's interesting to listen to to the Boston announcers comment on the Yanks-- often making wrong assertions.

Classic one from last night: Joba Chamberlain came in for one inning of relief in the 8th. It's pretty well known in New York that they are grooming Joba to be a starter next year. The Boston announcers kept speculating he might replace Mo-Mo Rivera as the closer. This is a nice analysis, except it's wrong. But I know that since I have been following the bombers all year.

I was at the Cape this past weekend with Jen and Nikko and Jen's family at their house in West Yarmouth. Add Seagull Beach on Cape Cod to my list of beaches I have visited. I got to meet Rich, the Pancake Man!

Point O' Woods Beach, South Lyme, Conn., August 9, 2007

I wrote an entry about the recent NY Times article on Silicon Valley executives who think they aren't rich enough. Here's an interesting online disucssion about the article.
http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/08/crying_about_no.html

I fall into the camp of seeing the article as being rather accurate. I don't think that necessarily makes the subjects in the article pathetic as much victims of the society we live in, and the extreme those societal pressures present themselves as in Silicon Valley.

A while back I spoke to a business partner in the Valley who asked me what car I drove. At the time, I drove a 1997 Saturn SL. He told me how in the Valley he had to drive an expensive car. He very much sounded like a victim... which I think he was.

It bothers me that many analysts are blaming borrowers for the recent stock market "correction." I am not a stock market analyst, but my limited understanding of the situation goes something like this:

-- Too many people took out risky mortgages to buy real estate.

-- They can't make their payments,

-- Their mortgages are going into foreclosure,

-- Everyone who has invested in the market is hurting because of it.

Many infer that if the risky mortgages were not taken out in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess. The reality is much more complicated. As a reasonably intelligent person, I cannot begin to explain how confused I am when I think about buying a house. I rent now, and one day I do hope to own. But the process is rather daunting.

Facing incredible pressure to buy, I can easily see that many would sign up for mortgages simply because "it's the thing to do." And I am not talking about risky mortgages... I am simply talking about mortgages that were probably too rich for the buyer. A few years back, it was so easy to get money, and much more than one probably could afford, that everyone "was doing it." To quote Mr. Greenspan from a different context, the whole process is suffering from "irrational exuberance."

I am not an economist, but I wouldn't be surprised if things got worse before they got better. Debt is en vogue. Just look at how much the United States is borrowing. And sooner or later, it's going to catch up to all of us.

For now, I am keeping all my cash. In fact, I might buy gold.

I decided to stop subscribing to Money Magazine. A year ago I signed up, hoping the magazine would help me better invest for retirement. After trying to read it, but realizing it best suits someone who has already invested a lot and seen good returns, I decided to stop.

I now subscribe to the Washington Post National Weekly Edition. It's a political must-read, though I am concerned, given I also read Newsweek, that I might not have enough diversity in my news magazines. We shall see.

My friends who came to Conn. for a weekend picnic last week note that my family produces a limitless number of useless facts.

• Did you know that when a fire creates smoke, the smoke signifies incomplete combustion?
• Or that the dog toys that place treats inside balls resulted from dogs chewing on engine mounts?

I can keep going, but you get the point. Such points, which randomly come up at parties and during beach weekends, demonstrate why Seinfeld was so successful. Random.

Annmarie and Amy, with me, at the beach house (August 4, 2007).

Jen, Kim and Nikko (August 4, 2007).

It was Tuesday morning that my computer just wouldn't turn on. The second full day of my vacation, and I woke up early to write a document for work. My work lap top decided it was time to take a break. Luckily. I took it as a sign as well, and didn't attempt to fix the issue until today. I am back in Boston. It's Saturday and nice outside. I have a day and a half to get ready for the work week.



I hope my doctor doesn't read this blog ... ever. Much more to come about the week, but suffice it to say I had a lot of meat (the picture above is the grill on Sunday at lunch time). Brett and I did make fish, too. In fact, Thursday night we grilled fresh swordfish, asparagus and potatoes. But fish on the grill doesn't make for as impressive a picture.

I am on vacation in Old Lyme, Conn. this week.

Luckily, you can get the New York Times here. Good story yesterday on the front page about working-class multi-millionaires. I had friends to the cottage (Nikko and Mike, Jen, Elizabeth, Blake, and Kim), and Brett is here, and we all got a kick out of the quote under the picture that was printed with the story. "A few million doesn't go as far as it used to." I really cannot comment on this quote from my own personal experience, but it does really hit on many key points.

First, I kind of feel bad for the people in the story. They are obviously very driven, but the reason they are driven is kind of interesting. They believe they don't deserve the money-- that it kind of fell in their laps because of the Internet boom. They think if they don't work hard, they could lose it all. And then where would they be? The answer, of course, is where they started: very smart, with a good career and in some cases, a good family. Yet this doesn't seem to be enough. One quote from one of the subjects that is also a nice summary:

"“Here, the top 1 percent chases the top one-tenth of 1 percent, and the top one-tenth of 1 percent chases the top one-one-hundredth of 1 percent,” he said.

“You try not to get caught up in it,” he added, “but it’s hard not to.”

In Australia, I have heard, people are content just being where they are. Is it ok to just make a couple hundred thousand dollars a year? In the U.S., of course not. In Australia.... sure.

NOTE: Article excerpt from New York Times, "In Silicon Valley, Millionaires Who Don't Feel Rich," by Gary Rivlin, August 5, 2007.

Mark it down: During the first week of the season, I told Blake (my old roommate) that the Yankees wouldn't even make the playoffs. He was citing some computer model that predicted the Yanks would win more than 100 games. I knew better.

I think there are two things wrong with my beloved Yankees. First, there is no chemistry. Second, it seems like the team is not playing with any passion. They just seem to be going through the motions. Maybe things will change, but for now, my prediction stands.

***

Since the Yanks are eight games out and there are no other sporting events to watch, I have started following "The Bronx is Burning." I think it should be required viewing for any Yankees fan.

Today, The New York Times published a letter to the editor I authored. I am going to republish the letter here and break down my thinking. Before I do, however, I will give you the full story.

As noted in this blog, the Times wrote an editorial observer column a few weeks back that criticized its own reporting on Iraq. The Times admitted it was not appropriately defining the distinction between Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Al Qaeda in Pakistan. [This blog is quickly turning into my observations regarding that distinction, by the way.] The summary by Clark Hoyt that prefaces my letter today does an excellent job of summarizing the Times introspection:

The battle over the nature of the war in Iraq is heating up.
The New York Times and other news media have become more aggressive in questioning President Bush’s rationale for continuing the war, and particularly his argument that it is primarily a battle against Al Qaeda.
On Friday, July 13, Michael R. Gordon and Jim Rutenberg reported on the front page of The Times that Bush’s “references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship” with Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, which according to a new National Intelligence Estimate (N.I.E.) has found safe haven in Pakistan.
That intelligence report, released on July 17, concluded that the United States faces a heightened threat of terrorist attacks because Al Qaeda has been able to regroup in the lawless, semiautonomous provinces along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. The report said that Al Qaeda would seek to take advantage of the “contacts and capabilities” of its ally in Iraq, which sprang up after the U.S. invasion in 2003. Intelligence officials briefing reporters about the report said that group is led by foreigners.
President Bush isn’t backing down from equating the two Al Qaedas and declaring them the main enemy in Iraq. In a speech Tuesday to a military audience in Charleston, S.C., he said the Iraqi group is a “full member” of bin Laden’s terrorist network and takes its cues from it.
The Times said the president used what aides described as newly declassified intelligence to make his case. “But the White House and intelligence officials declined to provide any detail on the intelligence reports Mr. Bush cited, including their titles, dates and origins,” the newspaper said.
It quoted Edward M. Gistaro, a principal author of the July 17 N.I.E., as saying that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is “focused on the conflict in Iraq at this time.”

Now here is what I wrote and what the Times published today, with commentary from me:

I admit I was confused by the classification of “Al Qaeda” as one of the groups involved in the fighting in Iraq. It is reassuring that The Times is going to be less “sloppy” in its reporting from now on.
As to the larger thesis of the complicated nature of the battles in Iraq, I find that the Times is presenting the Iraq situation in clearer terms than might be the reality. In reading coverage on July 9, for example, I saw mention of only two of the insurgent groups involved in the fighting (Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia being the primary one), when in reality there likely were many others.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love the New York Times. I read it every day, and would subscribe to it if a subscription actually saved me money off the newsstand price (for home delivery in Boston, it does not). At the same time, I think reporters and politicians are trying to make the Iraq war understandable. In the process, they are simplifying the war too much. "The insurgency," it would appear, is not defined by one, two or even a dozen different groups of insurgents. In fact, the very nature of the groups is amorphous. The Times has taken a great step in deciphering the President's insistence on a connection between Al Qaeda in Iraq and Al Qaeda in Pakistan, but it has not gone far enough to adequately explain the unexplainable war that has taken hold in Iraq. Now back to my letter, picking up where I left off:

But as a whole, I applaud the Times coverage of the fighting. For example, in the July 8 Week in Review was an informative article that traced the roots of a recent decline in violence in Ramadi. It was not clear whether the decline was the result of the recent increase in American troops, or merely that Sunni groups there are fed up with the fighting. This is an interesting contrast to Senator John McCain, who insisted on July 10 that the drop in violence in that region is directly related to the Bush administration’s surge.

In my discussions with the letters editor at the Times, I noted how many others besides Senator McCain have now advocated that the drop in violence in Ramadi is a result of the surge. In fact, Senator McCain is not even the strongest proponent of that message. But at the time I wrote the letter, Senator McCain was the one advocate I saw.

Also, there is an assortment of views on how the Sunni groups in Ramadi have decided to stop the violence. Some are saying that they have reached agreements with U.S. troops there, while other say they are just "fed up," and it would have happened whether U.S. troops are there or not.

ROSS LEVANTO Waltham, Mass., July 10, 2007

By the way, it's woth noting that the New York Times has an editor whose sole job is to compile letters sent to the Editorial Observer column. She called me this past Thursday, told me the letter was going to run, and even sent me the letter as it would appear. She confirmed the dateline of Waltham-- asking me where I was when I wrote the letter, and not where I live. That's pretty darn thorough....

Note: Excertpts are taken from New York Times, "Other Voices: Al Qaeda and the Enemies in Iraq," by Clark Hoyt. July 29, 2007.

One would think to rely on the White House to deliver the interpretation of a National Intelligence Estimate, such as the one issued a few weeks back. Given the agenda of our current President, that's probably not a good idea.

For that reason, to find the best interpretation, I looked overseas.

The International Herald Tribune has a great summary, published on July 22. The story focuses on Pakistan, and how the NIE notes that Al Qaeda has "reconstituted" itself there. Why is this important? The Bush Administration claims that the NIE justifies the war in Iraq, because the estimate discusses how Al Qaeda in Pakistan is benefiting from Al Qaeda in Iraq for recruiting purposes. However, this fact should be overshadowed by the fact Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, and the Al Qaeda in Pakistan is the group that attacked the U.S. on 9/11. Here's a telling excerpt from the International Herald Tribune story:

"The western mountains of Pakistan have been the hatching grounds for some of Al Qaeda's deadliest plots. Besides the London transportation attacks in July 2005, the thwarted plot to blow up multiple trans-Atlantic commercial jets last August is thought by British and U.S. officials to have been planned by Qaeda operatives in the tribal areas."

If the western mountains of Pakistan are responsible for deadly plots, why is the Bush Administration pressing that the NIE justifies a near laser-like focus on Iraq as the front-line of the war on terror?

I went to Connecticut today to visit with some of my high-school classmates. My freind Kate Canada made the trip up from Baltimore with her husband Chris and their daughter Lily. Alison Jones, her husband Howie and their daughter Elizabeth offered to host Kate for brunch. Subsequently, they invited Jason Joly, his wife Natasha and their son Aaron-- they live in Hoboken, New Jersey. Lastly, Alison invited Connie Curtis (I need to check with Alison on Connie's married name), her son Curtis and daughter Grace.

Basically, the brunch included a lot of kids, thier parents, and me. It was nice to see everyone, especially since I had not visited with Jason and Alison since last July.

From left to right: Jason (Aaron on his lap), Alison (Elizabeth on her lap), Kate (with Lily), and Connie (with Grace). For those reading this that do not know, the four parents in this picture went to high school in the same class with me at Norwich Free Academy. Despite the fact we graduated 13 years ago (sigh), we all manage to see each other once a year or so.

[pause] It seems weird to use the word "parents" in the previous paragraph. Doesn't everyone look great? Thanks to Alison for hosting and inviting me-- even though I did not pass the "with baby" requirement.

One week to my vacation. I will be at the cottage in South Lyme from August 4 until August 11.

On the Esplanade, Boston, July 3, 2007.

Wedding season!!!

I had the privilege of attending three weddings in June. First, I officiated the ceremony of Tom and Victoria Hopcroft in Winchester, Mass.


Second, I attended Chris and Tracy's wedding in Watertown, Mass. (Tracy and I below.)



Finally, I went to San Diego for the wedding of one of Kim's cousins.

I have started listening to a few different podcasts that keep me up to speed on politics. One is the Slate daily podcast, which includes a weekly "gabfest" each Friday-- a nice run down of the big stories of the week. John Dickerson, Emily Plotz and Emily Bazelon are a nice trio. Second is the NPR story of the day, which is one insightful story from the various NPR news shows.

However, by far the most interesting podcast of late has been from ABC News, and Jake Tapper. I was not familiar with Jake and his work before I signed up for the podcast, but I find him very insightful and thorough-- much like my favorite Tim Russert.

A week ago, Jake invited a conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt to his show. The discussion is an insightful and provacative case study into the current conservative criticisms of the media. Mr. Hewitt used an artful socratic method to turn the interview on Jake and claim that he was a member of the liberal media elite. He believes strongly that the media are liberals at heart and therefore, whether they want to or not, tend to report with a liberal bias. He believes this is why people are no longer looking to the mass media for their news.

Hewitt delivers his oversimplifications with authority-- No doubt this is how he performs his talk show on the radio. After listening to the podcast a few times, here's my take:

There's no doubt we all have biases, and the media have their biases as well. We must give reporters the benefit of the doubt when they say they are trying to be objective, but at the same time, we have to assume that reporters have a point-of-view. We cannot rely on one reporter-- or even a couple of reporters-- to give us an accurate picture of what's happening. We should rely on a variety of sources.

My mom is a good example. She is a loyal listener of Rush Limbaugh, except she is an independent who voted Democratic in the recent election. By listeining to Rush, she can see through a lot of his arguments.

By the same token, getting reports from a variety of sources is hard. Case in point: me. I read the New York Times, watch the Today Show, rely on MSNBC pretty regularly, enjoy Tim Russert, and also download the podcasts noted above. By definition, my news tilts slightly left. I really should try to read something conservative for balance, but unfortunately, it doesn't interest me... Perhaps I should start listening to Mr. Hughes' show? : )