I Don't Get it
I
like to think I am a fairly intelligent person. No genius, but I try
and stay informed. I read 2-3 newspapers each day. Each week I read
Newsweek, Time and The Economist. In addition, I listen to hours of
NPR every day. Now I mention this as background to make the point that
our President has been on a tear lately, appearing everywhere. I would
not be surprised at this point if we turn on the TV and there he is
turning letters while explaining to Pat and Vanna what his thinking is
on climate change in Copenhagen.
And yet for all
these appearances, I never come away having learned anything. I feel
so stupid that I am never any more enlightened after he's finished. At
first, I blamed myself. But it's not me. He's a smart guy and should
be an excellent communicator, but he's not. He's charming, funny and
seemingly sincere. Yet I don't understand the first thing about health
care. Sixty percent of Americans don't understand what's in any of the
proposals. I don't blame them, I don't either. More frightening is
that our representatives don't and have no plans to learn before they
vote. Health care, climate change, Afghanistan, the economy, Iraq, I
haven't the faintest idea where he stands or where he's concretely
going on these issues. But he's out there all the time talking about
them.
I think the White House thinks it's trite but what I'd really
like to see is an Oval Office address on health care with charts and
graphs. People mock Reagan as simplistic but the tax cuts sold because
the people watched him, understood what he was saying and what he
wanted. They then phoned Congress in droves. The problem with Obama
is that he can't make his case. There is all this cheering today in Democratic circles because 40% of Americans now support health care reform. That number is only great if you ignore the fact that we are weeks away from this vote and yet not even a plurality - 40% oppose it - supports even the notion behind the legislation.
Yes,
we all agree their needs to be a fix to the rising costs and the lack
of care for the uninsured. But is his proposal - whatever that may be
- going to result in a better system overall then the one it's
replacing? That is the question that millions of Americans can't
answer because he can't give them the comfort level and understanding
to answer in the affirmative. And the fact that they don't understand
what's happening, while at the same time the process is speeding
forward, scares the hell out of them. There's such a thing in business
as 'buy-in.' Getting stakeholders, whomever they may be, to understand
and buy-in to what you're proposing. Without that you can't move
forward. But Congress clearly does not care that the vast majority of
Americans have no idea what it is they're doing on health care. That,
I believe, is where the anger comes from. Are the radio yahoo nutjobs
exploiting that anger to turn the argument into socialized medicine?
Yes, they are. The White House doesn't get that.
Maybe there's a growing arrogance at play here. Obama thinks a speech before Congress will make the poll numbers turn around, just like a few hours in Copenhagen will bring Chicago the Olympics. Both calculations turned out to be gravely mistaken. I don't know how to make him turn this around. Clearly a Nobel Prize is not going to be the answer. All I know is that if I haven't the faintest idea what's going on then I can guarantee you that 97% of Americans don't either. That is not the right atmosphere to remake 1/5 of our economy in a few months. Nor is it democratic.
Wrong Lessons Learned & The Keystone Cops
Usually
when a scandal erupts involving law enforcement the analysis on how to
fix the problem is invariably wrong. Two recent examples - one local
and one national. The national one involves this man in California who
kidnapped this then young girl ten years ago. He kept her imprisoned,
raped her and sired two children by her. Now all you're hearing as a
result of this matter is tougher restrictions on sex offenders. The
problem of course is that all of this was eminently preventable had the
system then and now done its job properly. He was sentenced to serve
50 years for a previous sex crime and got out in 11. Why? When he
left prison the parole board gave him a letter of commendation. Huh?
He was visited regularly by the local police, who never bothered to
check the outlying buildings on his property. His probation officer
described him as a model probationer. Now be clear on this, he had
this young kidnapped girl - and eventually two children by her - on his
property and no one discovered them. They were not - like the Austrian
case - locked in a cellar for 20 years. And no one thought this odd.
One of the main lessons to be learned from this, which no one has yet mentioned, is how much of a mockery this case makes of the whole burgeoning sex offender registry industry. This man would clearly have been of the highest level. Certain resources would be devoted to monitoring him as opposed to someone who was a much lower level offender. But I can tell you from first hand experience that the drive to classify everyone convicted of any 'sex crime' no matter how non-violent or minor at the highest level, draws resources away from someone like this California guy who might have needed them.
It is
the burden of local police to live with the classifications made by
zealous prosecutors and cowardly judges. Label everyone the highest
level, looks good at election time. But it's the local cops who have
to deal day-in and day-out with the ramifications of that, not the
judge or the prosecutors. If cops were smart they would be as outraged
as I am by this 'level inflation.' The classifications are meaningless
if everyone, regardless of severity of crime, is considered the same.
The lessons from this California case is that the system needs reform
and people need to do their jobs. It is not an expansion of the sex
offender registry industry in all its manifestations.
The
local example of law enforcement incompetence is right here in New York
City. Once again the public and newspapers are taking away the wrong
lessons. The story is this. It turns out, astonishingly, that
numerous employees of the NYC Buildings Department (DOB) were active
members of organized crime. They worked in the Department for years
while maintaining their links to their crime family. All of this went
undetected. Now it would be one thing if all these men joined the DOB
and then went into a life of crime. But no, they entered City service
as active mafia members. Some newspapers are blaming Mayor-for-Life
Mike (I'll explain in a minute why I don't really blame him). I have
seen no account that pins the blame squarely where it ought to lie.
And that is with the Keystone Cops at the NYC Department of
Investigation (DOI).
You may not know this, but every single City
employee is fingerprinted and a background check is performed through the
FBI database before you can be considered a full-time employee. It has
been that way for at least 25 years. All of those checks are handled by
DOI. How is it even conceivable that all these members of organized
crime went undetected? Further, how is it that there has been no
assigning of blame or call for reform at DOI. The only comment has
been that DOI will now expand its use of federal databases.
After
I left HDC, the City forced HDC to sign an agreement with DOI allowing
them to check their employees as well as review annually low income
tenants living in HDC subsidized projects. DOI has and does bill HDC
millions for their staff assigned to the corporation as well as the
work performed. I can tell you with some knowledge what an
extraordinary waste of money this is from HDC's perspective. From
DOI's it is a nice income stream since they rip off the corporation
outrageously. But forget all that for a minute. In the 6 years that
DOI has been doing this their big accomplishment was discovering that a
cop lied about her income to receive Section 8 housing and that the
wife of a band member from the Monkees had been falsely claiming
residency to stay in subsidized housing. Those two things cost HDC
millions in payments to DOI. Millions that could have gone towards
housing. Does anyone besides DOI think this has been a good financial
bargain for HDC, the City or those needing affordable housing? I can
assure you it is not.
And of the mob infiltration of DOB? Well, the
larger point I am making - having worked in and around government for
decades - is this: when you try and do everything well, you're usually going to do
nothing well. DOI used to have a limited function. It checked the
background of city employees, investigated incidences of wrongdoing in
city agencies and ran the Vendex system to monitor contracts and
contractors who do business with the City. It also oversaw the City
Marshalls. Now it has its hands in everything. It has completely run
amok. So much so that at the end of the day it's primary mission,
verifying that the City is not employing gangsters, never gets done.
The culprit is not DOB, they relied on DOI. But you will never see DOI
being pilloried either in the press or at City Hall. It is an agency
completely out of control that has no sense of its core missions. They
constantly want to glom onto every state and federal investigation.
They are known by everyone as a joke for their investigative
abilities. Not to mention their total lack of professionalism. If
there's a leak in an investigation run jointly by DOI and the Feds or
the State, everyone knows it came from DOI.
As
to why I don't blame Mayor-for-Life Mike, you can't blame him. Even
though he sold himself as a manager par excellence he is probably the
worst manager we have had since Jimmy Walker. I always want to qualify
sentences like that by saying, "except of course for David Dinkins,"
but in this case I can't. The reason Bloomberg is so much worse than
Dinkins as a manager is that Dinkins had Norman Steisel. Dinkins'
Harlem gang knew he was inept. They forced him to bring on a deputy
mayor who would run the city, which Steisel did. It was Dinkins'
policies that made him such a disaster. That coupled with his total
hands-off approach to the job.
Bloomberg believes that commissioners
should be left alone to do their jobs not encumbered by strong deputy
mayors. And so you have agencies that have become completely
unaccountable. No one oversees them so no one at City Hall knows whats
going on or seems much to care. And this is his preferred method of
managing the city. The exception of course was Dan Doctoroff, but he
didn't oversee line agencies. It is amazing to me that no newspaper
has called-out DOI for their massive bungling of this. As an agency it
remains immune from criticism, for which we all suffer in a hundred
different ways.
Jerry Shargel to the Rescue
I
usually don't comment on celebrity news stories. But I will on this
one. Is Robert Halderman guilty of blackmailing Dave Letterman? I don't
know. He is presumed innocent before the jury that will hear his case.
And that is as it should be. But I do know two things. First, he and
I were both represented by Gerald Shargel. Jerry was my lawyer for 3
1/2 years. Jerry has a pattern. He takes high profile cases with big
fees. Mostly he has a bad track record of winning acquittals for his
clients. The press focuses on Gotti and the gangsta rap producers so
the impression is that he is very successful. The hallmark of a
Shargel case is that the press will be all about him and not his
client. Sure enough, as I expected, the day after Mr. Halderman was
arraigned there was a profile story on Jerry. He gets these case, he
bombasts, gets profiled and his clients point of view is rarely
expressed. Jerry has used this refrain "there's much you don't' know,"
as entree to the morning talk shows to promote himself in this case. This is all a
tactic to intimidate Dave Letterman, but it won't work. Jerry is hoping
to frighten off Letterman by the prospect of the grilling of a lifetime
in the witness box. It won't happen.
The
second thing I know is of the public's unfettered affection for David
Letterman. It used to be, when I was growing up, that Walter Cronkite
was the most trusted man in America. A good case can be made today
that that person is David Letterman. No jury is going to accept the
mud thrown at Dave. Further, the Manhattan DA's Office under
Morgenthau doesn't prosecute outright bad cases. They are not the US Attorney's
Office. They are not contriving evidence to get Mr. Halderman for no
reason. Do I believe there's more we don't know about David
Letterman's sex life? Probably. Do I believe it will have any
material bearing on whether this guy extorted him for $2M? Not a bit.
Letterman is a smart guy. He is, in a very timely fashion, getting out
all the sordid stuff about himself. By the time Jerry gets him on the
stand there will be nothing there. Do I think Jerry Shargel knows some
bombshell secret? Some Perry Mason moment waiting to be sprung at
trial? Nope. This is classic Shargel. It will ensure that the next
potential defendant thinks of him first when needing a criminal defense
lawyer. It will do nothing to help the defendant's case or his chances
of retaining his freedom.
Polls show that 30% of Letterman's audience would abandon him because of the scandal. Don't believe it for a second. Dave is beloved in a way that Leno can only dream of. He is cranky, obstinate and opinionated. But he is always a straight shooter and a seemingly very decent guy. It is that reputation, built up over thirty years, that will see him through this and any mud that Jerry Shargel tries to throw will rebound causing him to look like Crispin Glover.
Hate Crimes Legislation - Always Wrong
I am covered by this statute at the moment because I am Jewish. I reject that protection. No Presbyterian's or Baptist's murder is less serious than mine because he believes in Jesus Christ and I do not. If I am attacked by a white Evangelical do we get to choose whether he accosted me because I am gay or because I'm a Jew? Does it matter to me, all bruised and beaten up, which part of me he dislikes more? No, it does not. If Pres. Obama wants to do something productive he should focus on expanding rights, not reducing them to a few protected classes. Rather than continuing to vaguely promise to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, If he were a man of his word, he would just do it. That would be a worthy accomplishment
This added hate crimes protection for gays and lesbians will pass Congress and be signed into law. It is unfortunate that so many gay men and women can't understand that this is one club we should not be standing in line to get into.
Abasing the Judiciary - Let's All Go to the Lobby
As
you know I am currently undergoing sex offender registration in
Westchester County and have been for the last 16 months. The judge
overseeing my case is the Hon. Jeffrey Cohen, judge of the county
court. Judge Cohen was selected - as I told you he would be many
months ago - three weeks ago by the county Democratic Party to run for
State Supreme Court. I've listed Judge Cohen's numerous deficiencies
in the past and will again before election day. Westchester County is
comprised mostly of suburbs. As such, like much of America, campaigns
are waged by lawn signs sprouting up everywhere. They're an eyesore
but there's something very democratic about the whole thing. Being
raised in the city we never saw many lawn signs. It was all palm cards
and posters in store windows. And even that isn't done much anymore.
But again it's grass roots and always gave me a good feeling. But we
live in an electronic age. One in which even are most revered and
cherished institutions and offices have been made low. Clinton on
Arsenio, McCain on Twitter and everyone on The Daily Show & SNL. New York is held out as a very progressive
state because we no longer elect the judges to our highest court. We do, however, for most other judicial positions. But judges are still
expected to display some decorum in how they wage their campaigns.
This is not Texas after all.
Now imagine my shock when reviewing Judge
Cohen's campaign expenditures (available on- line) the other day to
discover that he paid almost $6,000 to Val Morgan/Screenvision. Do you
know what that company does? They place ads in movie theaters prior to the film starting. You know, usually it's Coke or Mountain Dew.
Sometimes it's for a tanning salon or the local Italian restaurant.
Occasionally it's for a Tony Hawk X-Box game. But State Supreme Court
is not some county judge hearing speeding tickets and variance
requests. It's a serious office that requires some gravitas. It doesn't
always happen, as I have written. We expect better of candidates
for the office than selling themselves like so much popcorn, nachos or pretzel bites.
I know the data doesn't concur, but I tend to be totally turned off by
products that advertise in movie theaters. I think it's a horrible
trend and I try to punish advertisers by not buying their products. I
hope and believe the citizens of Westchester County will feel the same
with anyone wasting their time and delaying their show.
Every day this election season candidates routinely appear at my Metro North station to shake hands and hand out palm cards to commuters. Recently I've seen a County Executive, District Attorney candidate and a few Supreme Court candidates. That is the proper and respectful way to run for that office. I have not seen a lawn sign for Jeffery Cohen anywhere, although his opponents have them everywhere. Perhaps movie theatre ads will be his sole communication with the voters. Or maybe he views everyone through the prism of seeing us all only as potential perps, to be held at arms length. In this case, however, they're called voters. In short, catering to an oversized ego by displaying yourself fifty feet across a movie screen, while hiding from the voters, does nothing but abase an otherwise honorable position.
Comments