RUDY VERITAS

OLD MUSINGS V

7/13/11 - Child Porn at Justice - The Neverending Double Standard

We've known for years that when it comes to the U.S. Justice Department there has been, regardless of the party in power, two sets of rules for handling criminal behavior: one set of rules has US Attorneys going after any and every American for any infraction, however slight - never giving ground, always asking for the max, using any trick, breaking every rule and threatening families mafia style; the other rule applies to anyone employed by Justice, regardless of the law broken and however egregious the harm on their targets.

We hear these examples almost weekly.  U.S. Attorneys withholding evidence, having witnesses lie, lying to federal judges - there is no means that can't be employed to achieve the end.  Look no further than the Roger Clemens case where prosecutors blatantly violated a judge's order and offered evidence to the jury he ordered them not to present.  This was the second time they had had done that in as many days.   It simply doesn't get more blatant, arrogant and egregious than that.  U.S. Attorneys are drunk with power and totally out of control

Lately Justice is engaged in a Nixonian cover-up involving the ATF ordering their staff - and average citizens - to violate a host of federal laws resulting in scores of deaths including a federal agent.  The Attorney General, setting the tone for his staff, actually perjured himself to a House committee.  And from his cool demeanor, his mendacity is not recently acquired. Holder's Acting ATF Director operated a program where dozens of people died and the man is not fired.  How could he be when he's one of the few people who could actually prove his boss - for the moment anyway - perjured himself.  In fact, no lawbreaker at Justice is ever fired.  They're reassigned, or after a period of time, allowed to resign.  In general, acts that average Americans are prosecuted for routinely go unpunished if committed by a Justice staffer.

But never did we think that US Attorneys possessing child pornography, an issue that Justice claims is of paramount federal importance, would not only go unpunished, but actually unreported.  It's simply covered up.  The Assistant US Attorney in question admitted that he "spent a significant amount of time each day watching pornography."  And when they checked, lo and behold, child porn. He was quietly allowed to resign.  No indictment, no perp walk, no press release, no sex offender registry.  Just a quiet cover-up.  Most shockingly, Justice refuses to release the Asst US Attorney's name.  How do we know this?  Because Sen. Grassley asked Justice for internal investigations that they closed and had not reported publicly.  In that haul was this child porn case.

Grassely is now asking Eric Holder why this man wasn't prosecuted.  Thus far, Holder has refused to answer.  There's not two sets of books at Justice?  One for them and one for us?  When will Congress realize what every major police department in this country knows: you cannot let the police police themselves.  Ask Rep. Issa or Sen. Grassley if they believe Justice's ability to monitor its own criminality is sufficient.  Justice has proved time and again they will not go after their own.  Congress needs to create an outside independent mechanism to do just that.  There is no Justice unless there is justice for all.

Thanks to Rudy Veritas reader Peter F. for bringing this to our attention.

These are the links and Sen. Grassley's letter:

CHILD PORN at DOJ        ABC NEWS - DOJ CHILD PORN

 

 

7/5/11    A Sick, Sick Nation

            If there is any greatness left in this country it is to be found this week in the convergence of a lower-middle class mother from Florida and the once future President of France. 

What could these two people, who couldn't come from more different worlds, have in common?  They, each in their own case, helped expose the darkest side of our society, while giving a glimmer of hope to what was once a great system of justice.

I almost posted on here a few weeks ago this question, "What is the national obsession with this dead baby case in Florida?"  I still have no answer to that question but no case since the O.J. trial has galvanized cable news the way this one has.  Why a local murder case in Florida would be of interest to someone in California or Maine is simply beyond me.  But it's a mute question at this point.  A question without a reasonable answer.

It goes without saying that this violent death of the little girl is incredibly tragic.  We throw that word around a lot these days: Anthony Weiner is tragic, Arnold & Maria are tragic, Terry and Jenny Sanford are tragic.  Those aren't tragedies. A vicious killing of a little girl is surely tragic.  But the national biblical-like condemnation of this woman, Casey Anthony, is beyond any comprehension.  The white trash spectators who spend their days waiting in line to witness a case they have no connection to and involves no national import is sickening.  In their polyester shorts and wife beaters screaming, "Justice for Caylee," these people make us all ashamed to be Americans.

No one has a genuine right to comment on the wisdom of the verdict other than the jury.  They sat through weeks of testimony and more importantly, were shielded from arguments, testimony and newspaper stories of which we all became aware.  You can't unknow that which you know.  Their environment is pure for the purposes of this case, ours is not.  In the meantime this woman - inarguably a lousy person - underwent the most relentless abuse we can dish out in the 21st century.

On TV this evening Nancy Grace came very, very close to condoning vigilante justice against Casey Anthony once she's released.  It was a very scary thing to watch.  Time Warner, certainly making major bucks from her program during this trial, has to be careful with what's going out over their network.  Her program makes a mockery of anyone's criticism of Fox News which had Sean Hannity defending the verdict and Bill O'Reilly presenting something close to a balanced analysis.  The acronym HLN stands for Headline News.  The key word being news.  What goes out at 8 PM each night on HLN is something out of Network, for those of you old enough to remember that film.  Paddy Cheyefsky could not have created a more loathsome, frightening example of ratings at all costs journalism.  Not content to rail against the verdict, she proceeded to outline each of the jurors personal shortcomings, as though that is somehow relevant.  This all from a woman whose victim bonafides, which seem to grant her this license to condemn everyone, has as many holes as the alleged rape victim's.

The not guilty verdicts in Casey Anthony's trial demonstrates two things: 1) Cameras in the courtroom are antithetical to our system of justice.  The U.S. Supreme Court knows this and that's why they refuse to allow them in their court; and 2) Cable news is making it increasingly difficult to receive a fair trial.  You think the over-the-top behavior by the prosecutors in her case was not influenced by the cameras?  It's insane to suggest otherwise.  It was surreal to watch cable news condemn itself for its coverage beginning five minutes after the verdict was announced.  As though they didn't know this yesterday but somehow had a universal epiphany only once the jury spoke.

The verdict in this case notwithstanding, Casey Anthony was blessed and lucky to have a jury this thoughtful and that's why she was acquitted.  That happens rarely anywhere and never in death penalty Florida.  Cameras and cable news will soon bury any presumption of innocence in this country.  Which brings me to the other case.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn was tarred, feathered and as good as sentenced within days of the incident at the Sofitel Hotel. 

Take him off the plane, sure.  Bring him in for questioning, you bet - it's a serious allegation. But then, the proper thing would have been to take his passport and have his attorney guarantee he will stay in the U.S. while the police and D.A. continue to investigate. 

District Attorneys need to use good judgment and not be swayed by lynch mob theatrics or newspaper hysterics.  Cy Vance didn't do that.  He arrested the man, perp walked him, threw him in Rikers, had his ADAs make outrageous and inflammatory statements in court and then asked for outlandish bail requirements.  The judges were no better for buying into all of this.  His accuser now turns out to be the worst sort of person for any number of reasons: chronic and habitual liar, money launderer, opportunist, extortionist - perhaps not a prostitute, as if that improves her character dramatically.

We've heard over and over again, justice for the rape victim and justice for Caylee Anthony.  This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what our justice system is all about and what the objective is in that courtroom.  Yes, it's vitally important to bring the guilty party to account.  But our entire system of justice is predicated on protecting the defendant, not the victim - or at least it used to be.  The power that the state has in a courtroom is so vast and overwhelming (especially the federal government) that the most stringent protections need to be maintained to insure that the accused receives something resembling a fair trial. 

Our system raises the bar so that the prosecution has to meet the highest of ethical standards and conduct while prosecuting a defendant.  That may come as a shock to some of you who have been seduced by the Nancy Grace view of justice, but it's not and has never been the one we operate under.  All those amendments to the Constitution never mention victims, they do repeatedly reference the accused.  That's who the Framers designed these protections for.  What was true in the eighteenth century is just as true today.

Our spineless Mayor, here in New York, said today that perp walks are wrong.  This, after he said not four weeks ago that they were perfectly justified.  Not a surprising turnround from a man who has no moral center or philosophical core.  He's a Democrat, then a Republican and then an Independent - all within a decade.  It's not shocking then that witnessing a seemingly guilty man perp walked is not repugnant to him.  But when a not guilty man is similarly perp walked then it's unseemly.  It either strikes your inner core as wrong or it doesn't.  Having none, he's free to sway from side to side.

He went on to say that although he now opposes it, there's nothing he can do.  Really?  Perp walks are arranged encounters.  The press is informed when and where and the perp is often slow walked to enable the cameras to get repeat shots.  The Mayor can't order his police commissioner to stop doing this?  Really?  Bloomberg is such an on-going disgrace.  He's the weakest man I have ever seen in a major political office.

My greatest fear is that the wrong lessons will be learned from these two outcomes.  The lesson here is not that the system worked; DSK will have his charges dropped and Casey Anthony was properly found not guilty based on the evidence presented.  The lesson here is that these outcomes are virtually unknown in our country.  And especially in low profile cases where the defendant isn't white or wealthy.  Hundreds of times each and every day defendants are convicted in bad circumstantial evidence cases or prosecutors conceal exculpatory evidence.  That is the reality.  Not that our system works, but how often it doesn't.

Sadly, nothing will change as a result of all of this.  These two cases put a mirror up to who we are as a society, what our obsessions are and where we place our priorities.    A small positive glimmer in the end, but generally further evidence of what a sick, sick nation we are.

 

7/1/11  DSK - An Anita Hill/Ray Donovan Moment

One has to be reminded at least a little today of Ray Donovan.  While Dominique Strauss-Kahn has always been a womanizer, there has never been any credible accusation of force.  So where DSK goes "to get his reputation back" is a pretty fair question. 

Publicly withholding a rape accuser's identity - which started in the 1980's as an attempt to make the charge of rape easier to prosecute by allowing women to come forward more readily - has now been proven to be wholly outside the legitimate constitutional sphere of criminal justice. 

I was opposed to this practice from the beginning.  It has been said that rape is not a crime of sex, but rather one of violence.  Fair enough.  So why are the rules different than for any other violent crime?  Is it humiliating to admit to having been raped?  Sure.  But nearly any victim of a violent crime finds the admission humiliating.  Look at the lawyer in all the local NY newspapers who was a hostage in a liquor store robbery.  This man escaped from his captors and then, in the words of the NY Daily News, "sobbed hysterically" - with a picture of him doing it.  Now that's pretty humiliating.  But no one would suggest for a second that this man's name be withheld.   Or a grown man pistol whipped by some 16 year old punk.  A very humiliating thing to admit.  It must be awful to be the victim of rape.  But it's a crime and if one wishes to make an accusation - in an open free society - you have to come forward publicly to do so.

Let's say it was not the district attorney's office who discovered that this woman was a money launderer, drug seller and extortionist.  Her name being withheld pretty much prevented the news media, or a random citizen who might know her, from discovering or revealing her past and present behavior.  Moreover, it is beyond rare to have a prosecutor blow up his own case .  In almost every instance, the prosecutor would have withheld this info and let the case proceed (does the name Mike Nifong ring a bell).  Only years later might DSK, having discovered this evidence, attempt to overturn a guilty verdict.  The Supreme Court has, however, made that nearly impossible.

Who benefits from the identity of an accuser being shielded, beyond the accuser?  Monkeying with the judicial process in the hopes of bringing about some societal good - more rape victims coming forward - is a perniciously bad precedent. Women's rights advocates argue that this would inhibit rape victims from coming forward.  No, it would inhibit gold digging perjurers from coming forth. And that is only a positive thing. 

We all remember the name Reade Seligmann of Duke rape case fame.  But does anyone remember or even know the name of the lying woman who accused those boys?  Nope.  Or the Rutgers case.  Or for decades the Central Park jogger who misidentified those boys and sent them to prison for years.  This should be totally unacceptable.  Can anyone argue seriously that this extra-constitutional protection afforded alleged rape victims encourages these episodes?

And what hath Cyrus Vance wrought?  Yes, certainly justice for all.  But look at the extraordinary damage Vance has caused by treating DSK like any other perp.  The world financial system is perilously close to a domino like calamity.  DSK was uniquely placed and qualified to handle, and hopefully solve, the Greek problem.  This man was, in all likelihood, going to be the next President of France.  Now the voters will probably be denied his tenure or at least the choice of electing him.  And what of DSK personally? 

Although not the major consideration, once you add-up all the legal fees, housing costs and sundries, this episode will cost the Strauss-Kahn family millions and millions of dollars.  Is Vance going to reimburse?  Of course not.  And what of handcuffs, perp walks, Rikers, insane bail conditions and the utter humiliation that accompanies any criminal charge in our current system?  Well, apparently he's just got to suck it up.  Somebody somewhere is saying, "Serves him right for ________."  What?  Visiting the United States?  Trusting African immigrant women?  Generally being a non-criminal letch? Or just being a Frenchman?

The French were horrified by how we treat criminal suspects.  I don't blame them.  No one in this country is presumed innocent any longer.  Ironically, we have traded places with the French.  Their system used to be Napoleonic - guilty until proven innocent.  Ours was the one where the defendant had rights and a presumption of innocence.  An ignorantly complacent electorate coupled with a hostile Supreme Court has turned that all on its head. 

There's no question this is a huge black eye for the new prosecutor.  But in light of all this and the discovery of the HBO documentary footage in another failed prosecution, he took pretty decisive action: he fired the head of the Sex Crimes Unit, he immediately told the defense that this woman had lied and that they no longer considered her a credible witness and quite possibly, his office will agree today to much reduced bail conditions until they figure out where they go next in this case.

None of this excuses bad investigatory work and an outrageous rush to judgment.  This is, whether we know it or want to admit it, an Anita Hill moment.  Men have just as many rights as women constitutionally.  There is also no monopoly of perjury to just one of the sexes.  Women lie as witnesses and complainants just as much as men.  This extra special protection accorded to alleged rape victims must come to a stop. This would at least be a first step towards restoring some balance.

 

6/28/11 - Never Too Much of a Good Thing

I thought that opponents of campaign finance laws, such as myself, would find interesting the hysterical editorial in today's New York Times.  Their basic position is this: the way to combat too much money in elections is to infuse even more money, but at taxpayer's expense.  I think it's the NYT that's upside down.

NYT: 1st Amendment, Upside Down

 

6/28/11 - Little White Cartons

                There is a piece in today's New York Times describing the process by which Federal District Court Judge Denny Chin came to hand down a sentence of 150 years to Bernard Madoff.  If you want to read an indictment of our criminal justice system, this isn't a bad place to start.

Let me just say as someone who was sentenced in federal court, that there is much wrong with the process.  But chief among those faults is the notion shared by so many judges of punishment based on collective guilt.  If you commit a crime you should be punished based on the severity and individual facts of your particular case.  No one has a problem with that. I certainly don't.  What I do have a problem with is this prevalent practice by judges to "send messages."  It is despicable to screw around with people's lives by sentencing them in order to send some societal message. 

In the Madoff case Judge Chin says,“A defendant should get his just deserts.” True.  But he shouldn't get anyone else's either. 

The story goes on, "The judge, explaining why he had rejected the defense’s request for a substantially shorter sentence, provided two reasons why the symbolism of a much longer term was important: to send the “strongest possible message” of deterrence, and to help Mr. Madoff’s victims heal." 

Symbolism, retribution, healing and deterrence.  What does any of this have to do with punishing a crime?  Healing???  Really?  That's how sentences in federal court are handed down, based on the soothing effect they might have?  Why not make Dr. Phil an honorary federal judge and allow him to sentence people.  He will do it much more convincingly then Denny Chin.

The Times piece goes on, "As Judge Chin listened from the bench, nine of Mr. Madoff’s victims described the devastation he had caused in their lives. Mr. Madoff rose and offered a lengthy apology, saying that he felt “horrible guilt.” He turned to face the victims, and apologized again.  To Judge Chin, Mr. Madoff seemed sad, almost as if he were grieving. “But I did not believe he was genuinely remorseful,” the judge recalled."

The man turned himself in before anyone knew of his crime.  He never objected for a second to a guilty plea and never tried to cut a plea deal.  He told the authorities everything he knew and made no effort to hide the bulk of his assets.  He detailed his acts and apologized to the victims.  And Denny Chin says he wasn't "genuinely" remorseful. That is the canard every federal judge hangs their hat on.  It's the lazy judge's approach to sentencing - "the defandant isn't remorseful enough."

"Moreover, any sentence of less than 150 years could be seen as showing him mercy. “Frankly, that was not the message I wanted to be sent,” he said. Judge Chin noted in the interviews that 20 or 25 years would have effectively been a life sentence for Mr. Madoff, and any additional years would have been purely symbolic. Yet symbolism was important." 

Because why?  Bernie Madoff, like some Christ figure, needs to die to suffer for the sins of all white collar criminals everywhere?

The worst part of the story was the absolutely idiotic statement made by Denny Chin regarding victims and friends. He says he received 450 e-mails from Madoff victims.  "He also wrote that he had received no letters on Mr. Madoff’s behalf: “The absence of such support is telling.” 

Yea, it's very telling that no one was willing to publicly proclaim their fondness for a man everyone - including the judge - was saying was the embodiment of evil on earth.  Yea, sure, people want to line-up to receive death threats and worse for writing a letter to the court relating Madoff good deeds.  Yes, it's incredibly telling no one wanted to risk death and harm to their family to write Judge Chin a public letter. How moronic! 

The reporter, Benjamin Weiser, frames this story as one man's struggle to divine justice.  What a load of crap.  What this NYT piece is at the end of the day is another example of a judge giving federal prosecutors whatever they want.  U.S. Probation advised the judge to give a 50 year sentence.  The number 150 only existed as a crazy, outlandish request by Madoff's prosecutors.  In the end, Denny Chin did what federal judges do 98% of the time: he gave federal prosecutors anything they asked for.  How is that an agonizing profile in courage?

 

 

6/27/11 - Whither the CFB?    

                This is honestly not a rhetorical question, I just don't understand.  As a non-attorney, I am curious how NYC's Campaign Finance Law is not in violation after the Supreme Court's terrific decision today in Arizona Free Enterprise Club?  Here is a quote lifted from the Campaign Finance Board's website:

    "When running against a high-spending non-participant, a participant can qualify to receive public funds at an accelerated rate, up to two-thirds the amount of the spending limit." 

This is not a grant but an increase in the matching funds - exactly what the Supreme Court struck down today.  The Arizona decision specifically struck down any provision that sought to "level the playing field" with extra matching funds.  And yet I've seen no reference as to how this would affect NYC's program.  Just asking.

UPDATE:  Thanks to reader Danny B. for sending this WSJ article that addresses the vulnerability of NYC's Campaign Finance Law in the wake of the AZ decision:

NYC's Campaign Finance Law at Risk

ALSO ONE FROM the NYT:

NYT: Where to Now on Public Financing

 

 

6/24/11 - Thank You Gov. Cuomo

                Just as history does not regard those Senators - primarily Democrats - who voted to reject the Voting Rights Act of 1964 as men of conscience, future generations of New Yorkers will not think well of the NY Senate Republicans who could only spare four GOP members to provide the majority for passage of New York's gay marriage bill.

But six men are deserving of great praise tonight.  First, the four Republican senators who voted for the bill.  This was not an easy vote and may in fact cost some of them their seats.  It took tremendous guts. They are Stephen Saland, Mark Grisanti, Jim Alesi and Roy McDonald.

Next, bill advocates owe a particular debt to the eminent fairness of Majority Leader Dean Skelos.  Sen. Skelos was no supporter of this legislation.  But in the end, as he himself said, "The days of just bottling up things, and using these as excuses not to have votes — as far as I’m concerned as leader, its over with."  He's right in what he says, but he could have very easily chosen to not bring the bill to the floor and there it would have died.  This would have been in keeping with Senate practice on bills the majority does not favor.  Sen. Skelos is clearly entitled to his vote, whatever it may be.  As a leader he has a responsibility to allow others to cast theirs.  He behaved in the best traditions of legislative leaders and went a long way to restoring the reputation of the New York legislature. 

Lastly, and most importantly, none of this would have happened without Gov. Cuomo.  I have said some very negative things in the past about Andrew Cuomo.  To paraphrase Winston Churchill on the evening of the Nazi invasion of Russia, "No one has been a more consistent opponent of the Cuomos than I have for the last 25 years. I will unsay no word I have spoken about them.  But all this fades away in the face of the spectacle now unfolding."  Gov. Cuomo said he would do this and did.  He had been previously opposed but realized he was on the wrong side of history and bravely changed his view.  Contrast that with Barack Obama who was for gay marriage ten years ago (most people have forgotten that).  Then he wasn't.  And now who the hell knows.  And for that matter, who cares.

I spent most of my life, as a gay man, being opposed to gay marriage.  I felt I had sound and defensible reasons.  I believed that as a minority in this country - maybe 7% of the population - that it was incumbent upon me and all gay men and women not to overly antagonize the remaining 93%; especially when the behavior we practice is so extraordinarily offensive to so many and repulsed based on religious grounds.  But no group of people can live like that forever in a free country.

I came to realize a few years ago that my views on gay marriage were neither sound nor defensible.  And therefore I did what I always try to do and be consistent in my thinking when it "evolves."  If you can no longer defend your position, then the honorable man must acknowledge that and reverse course.

There are so few reasons these days to be a proud American or a New Yorker.  But I am immensely proud of my state tonight and its leaders.  There can be no question that on this issue nationally, tonight is a game changer.  Thank you Gov. Cuomo and Sen. Skelos.

 

6/20/11 - Perverted Justice

I will never be able to write a more solid, thorough, cogent or unbiased explanation of how the sex offender industry in this country has run completely amok than that which appears in this month's Reason.com magazine.  Perverted Justice

I implore you, even if the topic doesn't hold much interest, to read it.  If you have any concerns about where this country's legal and criminal justice systems are headed, take a few minutes and read this piece.  Just because the government is only violating someone else's rights today, doesn't mean they won't be yours tomorrow.  Your comments - agree or disagree - are always welcome.

 

6/22/11     Line of the Day

                The line of the day goes to Joe Scarborough of Morning Joe.  In responding to John McCain's ever increasing hysterics on troop withdrawls in Afghanistan, Scarborough remarked, "There are more aides on Sen. McCain's staff then there are Al Qaeda in Afghanistan."  Based on Leon Panetta's estimate that statement is not only not hyperbole, it's actually spot on.  Really makes you think what 100,000 or 90,000 troops are doing there fighting fifty guys.  You can't orate that kind of stark logic away.

 

6/22/11    The Fast & The Dubious - Your Lying Gangster Gov't at Work

                How credible is Eric Holder's assertion that neither he nor any senior Justice Department official knew of the existence of ATF's Operation Fast & Furious?  The answer is not very.  He told Rep. Issa's committee in May that he had only learned of it a few weeks prior.  That would mean that when a Border Patrol agent was killed with a weapon from the Fast & Furious program in December, no one briefed the Attorney General as to the precise nature and background of this man's death.  Again, is that believable?  It's actually inconceivable.  Were it true, Eric Holder would make Alberto Gonzales look like Griffin Bell or Elliot Richardson.

But here's the reason you know he's lying and Issa and Sen. Hatch need to pursue this vigorously: he's not in the least upset that an agency head within his department had gone rogue.  An operation of this nature, filled with political landmines and no one told anyone in the AG's Office?  A program that went so awry that a U.S. government employee is dead and the AG isn't fit to be tied about it?  It just does not pass any sort of smell test.

Watch Holder's reactions at the May hearing and judge for yourself whether he's telling the truth to a congressional committee.  It was reported last night that the ATF Inspector General's report will take more than five months.  It was also reported that the Attorney General's Office is hoping this matter will die quickly.  See any connection?

Here's the ever growing problem within federal law enforcement.  It is totally unaccountable to anyone.  So let's say this Fast & Furious business is indeed scandalous.  Who would investigate it?  The Justice Department naturally.  Who's ATF's parent agency, their boss?  The Justice Department. 

I have written here many times that the reason you never, ever hear anything about the Bureau of Prisons and the horrible physical conditions, atrocious medical care and brutal treatment of inmates, is due to the fact that from whom would you hear it?  Naturally, the Justice Department - BOP's parent agency.  You think they have an inherent conflict of interest in telling you that one of their component parts is terribly managed?  No, of course not. 

If you're skeptical that Holder is lying, why in the world would he be letting Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson resign quietly this week (as quietly as this scandal will allow) if, as Holder implies, this man was running some rogue operation at ATF?  Rep. Issa needs to slap this guy with a subpoena the minute his resignation becomes effective and haul his ass up before the committee. 

But let's say Melson testifies and perjures himself regarding who above him knew about this.  To whom would Issa send a perjury referral?  You guessed it, the Justice Department.  Who polices the police?  In this case, all federal law enforcement would be scrutinized by Justice.  We learned a long time ago here in NYC that letting the police police themselves always ends badly.  Something needs to be done regarding this incestuous federal oversight.

More than ever, Congress needs to become aggressive - Gingrich era aggressive - in their investigations, subpoenas and refusal to fund certain agencies until their witness and subpoena demands are met.  Defund the NLRB (I know, a whole seperate issue).  Defund ATF until all this is fully explained to their total satisfaction.  What harm could be caused by defunding ATF for awhile?  Their mission has now morphed into letting illegal weapons be sold and transported, instead of preventing it.  What harm could anyone claim would be caused under these new circumstances.

Imagine U.S. Customs coming up with the genius idea of letting terrorists smuggle in suitcase nukes and then not even bothering to track them.  All in the hope that after they explode we can figure out their network by backtracking the debris.  That, to a slightly exaggerated degree, was the knuckle-headed idea behind Operation Fast & Furious.  But instead of nukes, ATF allowed known criminals to purchase vast amounts of guns and smuggle them into Mexico to be used by criminal gangs involved in the drug trade.  Moreover, they never informed the Mexican authorities they were doing this.  It's more than likely that many Mexican government officials were slain with guns from this program.

Eric Holder lied to congress and in all likelihood is engaged in some soft or hard cover-up.  This needs to be investigated to the bitter end.  I have so little faith in the tenaciousness of members of congress these days.  But let's hope for once the election season, usually a drag on any action, brings some needed partisan impetus to this cause.

And by the by, what is it with the need to give these overgrown teenagers who populate the ranks of federal law enforcement these 'cool' names?  Fast & Furious, I.C.E., etc.  It's not enough these jack booted thugs are given outrageous salaries, benefits and weaponry that an invading army would envy?  No, their fratboy egos require additional massage by these gangsta rap type labels.  It's too sickening.

 

6/21/11 Mostly Correct Yesterday at the Supreme Court

                 I don't agree with much that emanates from the bench at the U.S. Supreme Court these days.  June used to be a hopeful time for constitutional scholars and court watchers.  These last few Alito years have been pretty dismal.  But yesterday the court got two cases right, likely for the wrong reasons.  They also got one very wrong.

In the biggest case of the day, the court said that no, you can't just make a vague, general claim as to who constitutes a class in a sex-discrimination class action lawsuit.  Merely being a female employee at Walmart is not enough to entitle you to compensation or relief.  There simply has to be more specificity to the action and its provable harm to the plaintiffs.  That didn't exist in this case and the justices were correct in overturning the lower court.  My guess is that most of the five in the majority just sided with Walmart out of a pro business propensity, not because of the lack of real harm to these women.  But they were correct nonetheless.

The other decision worthy of cheering was the unanimous decision to toss the claim by a number of state's attorneys general that power plants were an annoyance and therefore the state could set its own environmental standards governing them - even if the plant was in another state.  I absolutely oppose the regulatory action that the EPA is attempting to promulgate in this area but if there were to be an action it would be coming from the federal government, not the states.  Again, I think most of the judges decided this based on their belief - which I share - that global warning is a hoax.  Not out of any committment to federalism. 

Of course it can never be a totally good day at the Supreme Court and there was a very troubling decision relating to civil contempt proceedings in child support cases.  While Justice Thomas was intellectually correct that the state has no constitutional obligation to provide counsel in civil cases, the explosion nationally in judges jailing errant fathers for non-payment has taken this out of the ordinary civil matter.  Jail is now a routine punishment for child support arrears.  Disproportionately those men being jailed are poor and minority.  Although this is not a race issue. 

When a previously rarely used option - jail - is now becoming the routine, then this is no longer a purely civil matter.  These are also not speeding tickets.  These cases can be very involved and complex.  No reasonable person would go into court on a child support matter that involves potential jail time without an attorney.  That is, of course, unless you're poor.  And then it's just judicial suicide.

The answer here is not, as Justice Breyer's attempts, to insure that states grant "substantial procedural safeguards."  Rather, it's to work to prevent states from jailing these men in a purely civil matter.  Yes, it's horrible that someone fathers a child and walks away from that responsibility.  No question he should pay what he owes if he legitimately can.  But there are stories all over the nation of squads of sheriffs and local law enforcement treating these men like Al Qaeda when they storm their homes to arrest them.  You want to deny someone a drivers license who hasn't made a good faith effort to pay?   Maybe I'd support that. 

Everything lately in this country is lazy and half-assed.  If you want to bring the harshest possible punishment - a loss of liberty - then be prepared for the responsibility of insuring that the proceedings are fair.  Don't take the easy action - jail - and them claim this isn't criminal in order to get out of spending money on court-appointed counsel. 

Jail in routine civil contempt matters used to be a rare consequence.  And in that instance Justice Thomas has a point.  But if it is to be used as the norm rather than the rare exception then you have to pony up the resources.  Moreover, you have to guarantee that the proceedings are fair.  Only appointing counsel in such matters can resolve that uncertainty.

 

6/21/11 - It's CityTime!

                So all the newspapers in NYC today are reporting on the U.S. Attorney's announcement that most, not just some, of the $700 million spent by the City on it's unified payroll system, CityTime, was the product of fraud.  This makes the black eye to the Bloomberg Administration that much purpler.  When asked about this, the Mayor's spokesman said, "  “Our Department of Investigation uncovered this fraud, bringing it to federal prosecutors, and we will be using all available avenues to recover any funding owed to the city. S.A.I.C. has been removed from the project, and substantial reforms have been made to the way large city contracts are managed.”  This continued charade in pretending that the Department of Investigation had anything positive to do with this is akin to claiming credit for having discovered the barn door open two weeks after the horse ran away.  While you may have been first, the usefulness and credit worthiness of that claim is zero.

Rather than doing their job in investigating this massive fraud while it was happening - in its genesis - they came  to it after it was over and $700 million was wasted on fraud, and sought to claim credit.  Why didn't they discover this years sooner?  Two reasons: 1. Everyone knows DOI is totally incompetent, they uncover no scandal until long after it's over, their job is contemporaneous, not post facto; that's the job of a DA, not an internal criminal auditor; and 2. The chief backer and protector of these crooks is the current OMB Director, the Mayor's 'adopted son,' Mark Page.  No DOI Commissioner was going to buck the Mayor's favorite staffer.  So they never looked or questioned the billings.  This, even after the NYC Comptroller and the Daily News pointed out glaringly that this thing was totally corrupt.  Nope, DOI turned a blind eye for years.  And for this they want plaudits.

The absoltuely galling aspect of this debacle is that the Mayor actually crowed last month that CityTime was operational.  His point being, yea it was a massive rip off but it finally works.  Only this man could have such a totally tin political ear to say something that stupid.

At his press conference, U. S. Attorney Preet Bharara mentioned half a dozen times that he wouldn't rest until the City got its money back.  Not once did he or Commissioner Hearn explain why this was a federal matter.  He never mentioned U.S. taxpayers or the interests of the federal government.  And NY reporters being their usual selves, have never asked this question of any of his local non-federal related investigations.  It seems to be that the justification always lies with the convictions.  A conviction isn't proof of relevance or jurisdiction.  As the Mayor's spokesman said, the first thing they did was turn it over to the U.S. Attorney.  True, but why?  The Manhattan District Attorney has ample jurisdiction.  The NYS Attorney General probably has plenty.  New York City is not some backward southern town where all law enforcement is too corrupt to be trusted.  Why the U.S. Attorney?  Why always the U.S. Attorney?

This dates back to a deal reached in 2002 between DOI and the U.S. Attorney's Office.  In exchange for becoming essentially a subsidiary of their office, the U.S. Attorney's Office would look the other way anytime any Mayoral official became involved in one of their investigations.  That is the reason why Preet Bharara has never gone anywhere near Mark Page.  He was/is the godfather calling all the shots in CityTime and no one has touched him. 

This is no proud day for DOI, Rose Hearn and Mike Bloomberg; press conferences to the contrary notwithstanding.  What started as a meritorious $35 million plan by Mayor Giuliani to consolidate the City's vast, unwieldy payroll systems into something manageable turned into a gargantuan taxpayer ripoff with City officials either complicit or too lazy to see the signs.  How bad was DOI's investigatory prowess?  They so bungled this that two of the main players were able to throw them off long enough to flee the country.

I can say with 100% certainty this sort of thing would never have been possible during the Giuliani Administration.  If for no other reason than Mayor Giuliani, while liking his budget directors very much, was never a captive to any of them.  Mike Bloomberg has a Dwight Eisenhower attitude towards Mark Page, he can't do without him.  This serves no one, least of all the taxpayers, well.  How many more examples do we need before the consensus forms that this guy is a lousy mayor?  I don't just mean the poll numbers; the citizenry has already tired of him in a big way.  I mean the informed cognoscenti, they still think he's swell.  It's always amusing to me to watch Bloomberg's arrogance trip him up.  Did he really think the laws of physics were changeable?  Did he honestly believe that his third term would end any less disastrously then every other mayor's?  Sadly, he did.  And now he's paying the price. Strike that, we're all paying the price.  Today alone that cost is $700 million.

 

6/20/11 - I'm Just Saying

                This past week two national studies were released that deserve comment.  In the first, New York State is ranked as the "least free state" among all the states in the union.  This study looked at personal freedoms, state laws and civil liberties violations.  In the second, New York State is ranked last in terms of business competitiveness.  Is it even remotely possible that these two things have some correlation at all?  I'm just saying.

I discovered this weekend - while listening to the always informative Larry Kudlow - that White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley is not only a former Boeing board member but actually voted in favor of Boeing's South Carolina plant.  This being the same plant that the National Labor Relations Board has targeted for eventual closure pending a kangaroo court hearing process.  Can you even imagine what a halfway competent Republican nominee can do with that in a presidential debate?  I'm just saying.

This weekend the NY Post published two charts showing the expenditures of the NYC Board of Education during most of the Bloomberg term.  The budget has gone up by almost 50% during his tenure to nearly $18 billion annually.  During that time the percentage of the budget per student for teacher salaries went up by almost 25% while the number of teachers actually declined.  Moreover, the number of students also declined by 8%.  So where did all that money go given a 50% increase in the overall budget?  The chart shows that teacher fringe and retiree benefits more than doubled from 13.6% to 30% of the budget.  Why?  You can thank Mayor-for-Life Mike's ridiculous teacher contracts for that.  Now, only after driving up the school budget by 50%, he discovers some fiscal religion and seeks to negotiate a tough contract and reform teacher prerogatives.  Meanwhile, city taxpayers will be on the financial hook for these lavish giveaways for decades to come.  He's the great manager, right?  I'm just saying.

Also in the NY Post this weekend, Kyle Smith does a wonderful job of skewering the president and his latest non-violent explanation for the economic morass we find ourselves in.  He blames ATMs and airport self check-in kiosks for displacing workers.  Yup, the 30yo ATM is somehow causing this current unemployment rate and sluggish economy.  Smith rightly points out that the president's logic would make the automatic dishwasher (mexican laborers) and the washing machine (chinese immigrants) equal culprits in explaining our current economic state.  Have they run out of car metaphors in the White House?  Boy, this is getting bad.  I'm just saying.

I watched Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa make the rounds of east coast TV these last few days.  First on Meet the Press and then today on Morning Joe.  Wow this guy is unimpressive.  I had no idea he was so bland and uninspiring as a speaker or national figure.  All problems, according to him and his friends at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, can be solved by Washington pulling out of current military operations in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan and sending that money to the states and cities for "education and infrastructure."  When asked by NYT reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin where precisely this new money would be spent by the cities, he could only repeat like a mantra "education and infrastructure."  It was like a zombie movie.  But instead of the refrain "brains" you heard, "education and infrastructure."  Watching his performance I could only think that he makes Richard Riordan look like JFK by comparison.  I'm just saying.

One week.  That's how long it took for Chuck Schumer to get back to Sunday press releases as usual.  I mentioned previously how refreshing it was to have a Sunday evening and Monday morning devoid of press coverage from some made-up local issue that Schumer was exploiting on a slow news day.   We can thank Anthony Weiner, Schumer's protege, for keeping the Senator under wraps.   But there he was this week - letter grades for buses.  Yup, not much else going on in D.C.: three wars; debt limit default; disastrous economy; 9.1% unemployment; two trillion dollar deficits and Greek contagion.  It's a good thing all of that is under control so that our federal officials can focus on the other important matters like bus grades.  Is anyone out there who has previously worked for Schumer willing to fall on his sword and create a media firestorm so we can get another delightful pause to his Sunday sideshow?  I'm just asking.

 

6/15/11 - Dining with Rudy

                I would have very much liked to have been a fly on the wall yesterday during the meals Rudy had with Govs. Perry & Christie.  Rudy's law firm is based down in Texas so clearly Rick Perry keeps tabs on the Mayor.  It's also a real player in Texas legal and political circles (the current AG is an alum).  But what does cowboy, secessionist Rick Perry make of drag wearing, pro choice, pro gay rights Rudy Giuliani?  Not much would be my guess.  I think we've all seen this movie before.  Gov. Perry sees Rudy very much as yesterday's news notwithstanding the poll numbers.  Moreover, he believes Rudy is out of touch and off message with the voters generally and Republican primary voters specifically.  Gov. Perry believes this is his time.  Rudy had a great shot in '08' - blew it - and now it's time to move on to a fresh face, the thinking goes.  Fresh being a relative term since Perry has been governor for ten years. 

Rudy these days gets paid the same deference as aging cardinals and mafia dons.  In fact, he's become his matinee idol - Vito Corleone - except not how he envisioned. Not in his prime feared and respected, but rather towards the end of the movie repeating the same warnings over and over again.  The real juice and star power has moved slightly west of NYC.

With Gov. Christie it's so interesting for me to watch.  This is 1994-1995 all over again with the roles reversed.  Back then Rudy was the superstar newcomer and everyone came to City Hall to pay respects.  Now the shining light of the Republican Party is west, not east of the Hudson. 

One pundit yesterday said that Rudy's people are putting out the word that he is near to announcing his candidacy not because of any fire in the belly - trust me, there is none - but rather because he doesn't see anyone able to challenge Romney and he - Rudy - feels the nomination should not go uncontested.  My goodness, how incredibly selfless and noble. All that time, money and effort - sloshing through the New England snows - in order to keep democracy alive in the Republican Party.  I never knew Rudy cared this much about the average Republican primary voter.  

Mayor Giuliani says he will announce something in August.  By then we will know if Romney has this locked, if Huntsman caught fire and if Pawlenty flamed out.  Further, we will know what Sarah Palin's plans are.  The wild card here that Rudydom hadn't calculated on is Michele Bachman (and to some bizarre lesser extent, Herman Cain). She makes a mess of Iowa for everyone and it's unknown right now how well she will play in New Hampshire.  She'll certainly play pretty well with an Iowa win - or strong number two - under her belt, however. 

Somebody was asking me the other day what Rudy is up to.  I said I didn't believe any of this was serious.  But then he went to NH on the day of Romney's announcement and blasted him.  Now that in and of itself didn't lead me to change my view.  What gave me pause about that was I know that Rudy isn't running and he will do nothing to piss off the nominee of the party. Why?  Two reasons: 1. He desperately wants a prime speaking spot at the convention; and 2. his business is partly predicated on the appearance of influence within the Republican power structure. 

Giuliani Partners would fare considerably less well with a Republican president who had been left hooked by Rudy.  So the fact that he's pissing on Mitt Romney may mean something is going on.  But had I any money, I would be placing my chips in the no-go circle.  He ain't running.  He's just trying to find relevance in an electorate that will still kiss his ring out of deference and thanks but wants to move on to new leadership for 2012.

 

6/14/11 - Pawlenty Flinches

                In prison - and much of urban America - when a tough guy wants to assess a new guy, he will fake a punch or head butt to the newbie.  If the new guy blinks or flinches, you know he's no threat.  Last night Gov. Pawlenty flinched, blinked and bent over and grabbed his ankles.  If he ever left the straight and narrow path, he would be someone's bitch in prison in five minutes.

Here are last night's winners and losers:

Winner - Romney: No one even tried to lay a glove on him.  His cool, calm demeanor coupled with his Romneycare/Obamacare answer served him well as front runner.

Winner - Huntsman: I thought it was a mistake for him not to show but I was wrong.  The stage last night did not light anyones's fire.  If Huntsman turns out to be a star in a debate he will shine compared to the other seven.  Last night left much to be desired in terms of new ideas and presentation.  Huntsman could conceivably zoom in the polls with a stellar performance at the next debate in August.  Or he could flame out quickly ala Fred Thompson.  The expectations for him will be very high.

Winner - Bachman: I told you 10 days ago she would be a great debater and not to be underestimated.  She did not disappoint.  For those, like me, who say that as long as Tina Fey draws breath Sarah Palin will never be president, Michele Bachman showed how you get SNL off your back - give a thoughtful, mature performance and soon they'll have nothing to lampoon you with.  Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is the gift that keeps on giving for comics.

Winner - Perry: He's feeling pretty good today after watching last night's debate.

Loser - Pawlenty: Bland, cowardly and uninspiring.  Except for John King's in-his-face moment, the perpetual smirk stayed afixed.  Like I said, this will soon creep people out.

Big Loser - Sarah Palin: Maybe not next week or even next month, but soon the Tea Party will gravitate towards their natural leader Bachman and abandon the empty buffonery of Palin.

Losers - Gingrich, Cain and Paul: Gingrich and Cain are overt xenophobes and that won't play in 2012.  Ron Paul didn't play his natural libertarian lines well.  His message is much better than he presented it last night.  However, his constituency is slavishly devoted and it probably won't matter.  But he's not leaving the second or third tier anytime soon.

The non-Republican winner last night by a small margin was President Obama.  Yes, Gov. Romney looked good, but Obama has become a good debater from his many Hillary losses.  Nothing last night led me to see anyone besting him - even with the miserable record - in a one on one debate.

One personal pet peeve.  When will these Republicans stop aping George Bush with these wimpish foreign policy answers about "deferring to the commanders."  These Republicans are always bowing at the feet of Reagan.  Well, I can tell you that not once in eight years did Ronald Reagan answer a foreign policy question by deferring to his generals.  It's weak and indecisive.  They should stop this Bush phony deference/punting but quick.

 

6/12/11 - The Debt We Owe Anthony Weiner

                I did not think there was anything on earth that could prevent a Sunday Chuck Schumer press conference, short of him being in a coma.  And in that event, I am sure, his office has prearranged contingency plans.  But I was wrong. 

It now seems that a major national scandal that - in its genesis - is of Sen. Schumer's making will keep him from the weekend microphone.  As you may or may not know, Anthony Weiner is a creation of Chuck Schumer.  He worked in his office, was picked by the Senator for the Council seat he won and was his choice to succeed him in the House when he won his Senate race against Al D'Amato. 

There exists no ray of daylight on any policy issue between the two.  Rep. Weiner has never bucked New York's senior senator on any matter at all.  So when the man Chuck Schumer chose to fill his seat finds himself embroiled in the greatest scandal thus far of this young century, he not only demurs in a substantive response, he comes late to today's parade so as not to meet the press.  Chuck Schumer shying away from a camera on a weekend?  The NY cognoscenti would have said prior to today that was unthinkable.

The reason I dislike Schumer so much is the phoniness of his popularity.  No citizen of our state can name a single piece of legislation attached to Sen. Schumer's name since he has been in the Senate.  Not a one.  His popularity in the polls is mainly due to his phenomenal PR machine.  I used to work in PR so I respect the craft and those who are apt practitioners of it.  But at its root, good PR has to be backed by some substance eventually.  A good PR man can make you believe Goldman Sachs isn't evil for a little while.  But because of its true nature, at some point no PR can make you like Goldman.  Unless of course you're a Satanist. 

There is no substance to the Schumer record.  As Senator, just as when he was a congressman, he appears every Sunday (always a slow news day) and feeds the beast.  He picks some seemingly pro-consumer, banal issue to rail against.  Often the issue isn't even a federal matter within his legislative purview. The fascinating thing - which no newspaper has noticed - is that no legislation has been enacted as a result of these press conferences.  He has had them every Sunday for the last 15 years.  What is the net effect of all that ranting?  Nothing.  Occasionally he will introduce some bill a few weeks later.  But they all die.  Why?  Because they were never intended to be enacted.  They were designed for one thing, to get ink in Monday's paper.  From that vantage point his success rate is near 100%.  And the voters read their Monday papers or watch their Sunday 11PM news and think their senator is doing something.  The fact is he does nothing.  Shockingly, Kirsten Gilibrand is a more productive legislator than her mentor.

I said in the last election and will for all future ones, that the belief by the state Republican party that Schumer is untouchable is nonsense.  They look at a 65% approval rating and wilt.  A decent candidate (David Malpass) with some money could defeat Schumer once his record is revealed.

As for me, not having to see Sen. Schumer on the local news tonight or in tomorrow's paper ranting about some semi-contrived issue makes the whole Weiner mess redeeming.

 

6/12/11 - NYT to Pawlenty:  You're Living in Dreamland

                Why the panic and vitriol in the New York Times' editorial on Tim Pawlenty's tax plan?  NYT: Tax Fantasia  The editorial juxtaposed two interesting notions that politically stand zero chance of going anywhere: 1. The rich are not taxed nearly enough; and 2. we need a giant new stimulus plan.

The Times mocks Gov. Pawlenty's proposal to eliminate taxes on dividends and capital gains.  The editorial's authors are deeply disappointed because Gov. Pawlenty's sound ideas no longer make him "reasonable" in their estimation.  Only candidates committed to the status quo and this $4 trillion monstrosity known as the Federal Government can hope to see themselves portrayed as anything but wild-eyed fanatics in future NYT coverage.

It's funny how pundits and the eastern chattering class are always condemning candidates for not proposing new ideas and yet when they do, the roof caves in.  What these types of attacks reveal to me is that even if Pawlenty's tax plan was shown to be revenue neutral, the NYT would still oppose it because the "rich" are simply not being soaked sufficiently.  If somehow magically the federal government could be funded at current levels with the poor and middle classes paying no income tax and the "rich" paying 6%, they would still be aghast.   You would see a NYT editorial calling for the government to increase its budget to $7 trillion and impose a 50% tax on upper income earners. 

Enough is never enough.  There's always more to be done.  Always more areas of our lives in which the federal government can become involved.  More wars to finance, more redundant social programs to fund (37 child nutrition programs), more state and local responsibilities to be subsumed or duplicated.  More, more, more.  They just hate the idea of people with wealth retaining the product of their labor.  It's not that Pawlenty's proposal isn't "reasonable."  His crime is in being bold and endangering the status quo.

 

6/11/11 - Shargel Complaint - Update

                Just a brief update on my complaint to the Disciplinary Committee of the Second Department, Supreme Court - Appellate Division.  They have informed me that they have received my complaint and will next be seeking a response from Jerry Shargel.  Further, they tell me that I will receive a copy of his response and have an opportunity to respond.  As soon as I receive his letter to the Committee, I will post it here.

 

6/10/11 - Paying To be Imprisoned - Part II

                Here is the New York Times' follow-up to their story I posted here earlier (scroll down).  I think people's reactions to the idea of saddling ex-cons with a large debt and refusing to release them from probation until it is payed, has caused many to wonder why this is really being done.  Out of Prison, Into A Vicious Cycle of Debt

 

6/10/11 - Why Obama is Out of Economic Fixes

                Try imagining it's 1978 and Leonid Brezhnev is sitting atop the most powerful military on earth.  Let's suppose the General Secretary surveyed the non-military part of his empire and didn't like what he saw.  A country that could not produce a working pencil, toaster or automobile.  A country that was steadily incapable of feeding itself.  And let's say Brezhnev knew what Ronald Reagan knew, which was that this situation could not go on much longer.  So Brezhnev would turn to his trusted advisors for advice as to how to fix this economic system.  Guess what would happen?  He would receive a steady flow of 5-year plans for greater collectivization of the nation's pencil factories and more, not less, state intervention in the economy.  He would get this advice because that's the only advice they were capable of giving.  Brezhnev would have nowhere to turn within his system to get the advice he needed to fix the problem (of course communism was at its core unfixable). 

Even Mikhail Gorbachev could not do what he actually professed he wanted to do; modernize and open up the system.  He was surrounded by old school Stalinists.  It took Boris Yeltsin's willingness to essentially blow the whole thing up to finally begin achieving some result. 

Barack Obama finds himself in the same state as our fictional Brezhnev.  Obama surrounds himself with true believers - government good, free market bad.  It is to these men and women he now turns to try and understand why their statist policies have failed so abysmally.  First, they don't know; everything they learned at Harvard told them this should be working.  Second, they want dearly to recommend keep doing more of the same - more regulations, more government control of the economy, and finally another one or two trillion dollars in stimulus.  They are desperate to heed Paul Krugman's advice.  But the political realities of the situation tells them that's impossible.  So they got nothing else to offer.

Barack Obama may have many positive character traits.  His worst however is his stubbornness.  Rather than admit this experiment failed, his reelection slogan appears to be, Just You Wait.  He is convinced that his doubling the national debt, tripling the annual deficit, increasing government employees, nearly crippling new energy exploration and issuing a mountain of new federal regulations will pay off in the long run.  There is no one who can convince him otherwise.  Mainly because, like Brezhnev, he only hears day-in and day-out from like-minded individuals. The White House is out of tricks and seemingly paralyzed in the face of the daily awful economic news.  And the president is at a loss to issue any coherent reassurance.

One day we're a car in a ditch.  Next we're a patient undergoing surgery.  Then we're adrift at sea and facing Perfect Storm like headwinds.  Lastly and most gruesomely, the economy is the victim of a vicious auto accident involving a large truck slamming into it and mangling its legs.  YEESH!  Who makes up these metaphors in the White House? 

These attempts at anthropomorphizing the economy are what is now substituting for policy in this administration.  It's not that their policies haven't worked, they believe.  It's that they haven't found the right automotive metaphor to properly explain why they haven't worked yet.  In Obama's view it's not they who are wrong, but us for not understanding the nuance of of how trillions of dollars of debt and spending can produce no jobs and 1.8% growth.  Apparently this is sophisticated economics and we're just too stupid to understand its subtleties.

You don't have to be Milton Friedman or Paul Samuelson to get that 7 trillion dollars of debt has done nothing constructive for the country.  I don't need a Nobel Prize to figure that out.  But apparently our Nobel Laureate president sees things differently.  It will be interesting to watch how, without altering course, he tries to continue to explain this positively through 2012.

 

6/9/11 - Pawlenty's Tax Plan: Halfway There

 

                Like Paul Ryan's Medicare offering, Tim Pawlenty deserves serious praise for laying out a detailed policy proposal on a very crucial subject.  Also, as with Ryan, I take some issue with a major underlying premise in the package. 

First, here is what he got right:

- a flat corporate tax rate of 15% with no deductions; and

- eliminating the dividend tax, the estate tax and taxes on capital gains.

 

I have been in favor of a flat personal income tax for over 25 years.  My preferred proposal would eliminate all deductions, except possibly a deduction to purchase health care, if that is away around Obamacare.  In my plan there would be a graduated flat tax that would enable every citizen to complete their tax return in under 10 minutes.  I would propose three rates: 5% for those earning less than $50,000; 10% for those earning less than $150,000; and 18% for those making more than $150,000.  You earned $250,000 last year?  Multiply 250K times 18% and deduct from that figure whatever you paid through your payroll tax during the year.  The result is your tax liability or refund. 

Pawlenty's proposal is slightly different in terms of rates and deductions.  But here's the big philosophical divide between me and Gov. Pawlenty - as well as most in my party: I believe everyone should pay some tax.  Under Gov. Pawlenty's proposal, the 45% of current taxpayers who pay no income tax whatsoever, would continue to pay zero taxes - he actually hopes to increase that number.  President Obama routinely talks about how many more people under his administration pay no income tax.  That is clearly a goal of his and most elected officials.  But why?

If I were a state legislator and was asked to vote on a Constitutional amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment I would cast my Aye vote with pride.  The federal government has no constitutional authority to tax our labor; hence the need for an amendment. But that is an issue for another day, not what's on the table this decade.

This idea that it is somehow just and moral to have people labor 1/3-1/2 of the year in order to pay Washington, is to my way of thinking simply obscene.  Your chief burden in terms of funding government should be to your state and locality.  Lastly and leastly it should be to Washington.  Washington is deserving of a tithing, a token, a small tribute; not half your life's earnings.

If we are indeed going to pay individual income taxes as the chief method of funding our government, then why shouldn't we all pay something?  Democrats clearly believe in the income tax and its application to things far and wide.  But at the same time they want as few Americans as possible to pay it.  If it is every citizen's duty to help pay for the Common Defense and General Welfare, then we should all contribute, even just five percent.  The only individuals who should be exempt would be the unemployed (who ironically enough are currently taxed on their unemployment benefits) and maybe some portion of the elderly.  Everyone else in society should pay to the general fund to finance the government.  I don't like the income tax as that method, but if it's what we have then why should only half of all taxpayers contribute?

And what is meant precisely by the Democrats constant refrain that the rich should, "pay their fair share?"  Fair share of what and as determined by whom?  When half the country does not contribute anything towards the funding of our government then anything "the rich" are paying is beyond their "fair share."

Those who argue that the 45% who currently sponge off of the other 55% do pay something through Social Security, I say that's nonsense.  That is supposed to be a dedicated fund to pay for a specific program to which we all contribute.  That has no place in a discussion of the funding of our government in general.  Moreover, if the federal government hadn't stolen trillions of dollars from that fund and replaced them with worthless IOUs we would have a solvent Social Security system for as far as the eye could see.

The great difficulty for lawmakers is to get a serious discussion going involving the necessary budget pain we need with a population that feels entitled to their mountain of benefits to which they've contributed nothing.  Of course most Americans don't want this or that program cut, it's all been free money to them.  The Democratic Party - along with a goodly portion of Republicans - have created this permanent class of freeloaders who are nonetheless invited to the debate.  You can't join a poker game unless you ante up first.  You can't rail at Steve Balmer at a shareholder's meeting unless you've purchased a share of Microsoft.  You shouldn't be a citizen in this country with all the attendant rights and privileges, without contributing toward its financing.

The Obama and Pawlenty goal that we should encourage the notion of a permanent freeloading class of citizens is wrong.  A flat tax?  Awesome, I'm all for it.  But don't just flatten the rates.  Flatten out the disproportionate burden borne currently by only 55% of Americans.  And give the 45% left out of the funding a rightful voice and stake in their government to which they will contribute.  Those two combined are a goal worthy of a serious, non-pandering presidential candidate.

 

6/8/11 - The Congressional Charlie Sheen

                Well first, all us Jewish men owe a debt to Anthony Weiner.  We are mythed to be less gifted than the average man.  So we can all hold our heads a little higher now thanks to the Congressman.

Seriously, however, he is of course toast.  It's now hours or days until he resigns.  Chuck Schumer will be given the task of delivering that message by party leaders.  Kind of like the internet age version of Goldwater and Hugh Scott trudging up the White House driveway in 1974.

You will find no other blogger or columnist who understands what motivated Anthony Weiner to behave in this way better than I.  The big difference is that I never sent my real picture to people I chatted with - X or G rated.  I was just too paranoid that someone, somehow would recognize me; and I was not a media obsessed member of congress.  So his behavior is beyond reckless and based on my experience, was a call for something: help, sympathy, pity, attention.  What, I couldn't guess. 

But here's what's pissing me off about this.  What Weiner did was immature and not in keeping with the behavior we would like to expect from a member of congress.  But that is in my view none of our business.  I could care less that he tweets porn stars and is seemingly desperate to ape Charlie Sheen.  I do care that he inserts himself into all our lives by prolonging this story by lying so baldly.  But still this doesn't rise to the level of inquiry or resignation.  You haven't heard me say he should resign, only that it's now inevitable.

But what I find outrageous is that Charlie Rangel's crimes were so much more severe and yet his colleagues had his back from minute one.  More than his House colleagues, the White House made sure the matter never got too serious.  The U.S. Attorney here in NY indicted a local Councilmember for among other things, overbilling the City for the cost of a bagel and shmear.  In other words, nonsense.  But Congressman Rangel's myriad of ethical and criminal behavior was not even investigated by the Feds - and he's a federal official.  As for lying, every word spoken and offered in writing by Rangel was a lie.  For much more serious matters than sexting.

Why the double standard?  Two reasons.  First, the obvious one, he's black and Chairman of the Ways and Means Committe (at the time this started).  But that's not the main reason.  The main reason is that he's a go along/get along Democrat of long-standing and a favorite of House Democratic leaders.  Short of murder, they were always going to do whatever was required to insure his survival.  And they succeeded.  Anthony Weiner on the other hand bucked his party elders and was generally disliked for his media showboating.  But what should that have to do with the seriousness of his charges or his ethical behavior.  Barney Frank had his home used as a brothel.  Not worse?  Why in the world should Charlie Rangel have been permitted to hang-on long enough to let his constituents weigh-in on his future and Rep. Weiner will be denied that opportunity?  Yes, he has now officially become a creepy guy and an admitted liar.  But he wasn't systematically ripping off taxpayers or using his office and federal dollars to erect monuments to himself and then lying about it.  That strikes me as far worse. 

But nobody ever ever said life - or politics in particular - was fair.  I probably agree with Weiner on not a single public policy issue.  But one thing my trevails have taught me is to point out hypocrisy where I find it.  I'm not a constituent of either Rangel or Weiner but I'd rather have a Congressman who was consistent in his policy views and fought for his constituents however smug, than an unctuous, hypocrtical, tax cheat who feels entitled to behave criminally and uses his military service sixty years ago as some sort of excuse.  But hey, I'm not a House Democratic leader. So what do I know.

 

6/7/11 - Paying To Be Imprisoned

                I'm always going to bring you interesting stories I come across relating to the deplorable state and federal justice system we have in this country.  The latest comes the the New York Times and deals with the crushing debt inmates are handed by the states when they leave prison.  After Prison, a Bill to Be Paid

 

6/7/11 - Rudy's Flat Week

                Not a good week for Rudy.  First, he travels to New Hampshire to test the waters and attempt to make amends with the voters there for having high hatted them in 2008. Thanks to Sarah Palin and Mitt Romeny, he was overshadowed in his efforts and thus far it appears to have been a dud effort.  But Rudy's harsh attacks on Mitt Romney, if he keeps them up, will surely endanger any hopes of a prime speaking spot at the Tampa convention next summer.  And after all, that and drumming up business for Giuliani Partners is what this is all about.

Next, Keiko Fujimori, daughter of imprisoned former Peruvian strongman Alberto Fujimori, hired Rudy's firm to advise her on "citizen security" matters.  Mayor Giuliani even spent a few days down there campaigning with Ms. Fujimori.  Since money has never been an issue for the Fujimori regime, I'm sure Giuliani Partners collected a tidy sum.  Alas, the former Mayor's efforts came a cropper as Ms. Fujimori narrowly lost her bid.  Pundits have said the voters where not comfortable with all her advisors being former members of her father's inner circle.  Maybe that was something that consultant Giuliani could have advised her on.  Personally I think her father's habit of torturing his opponents would have made her candidacy less than desirable.  But torture has never been a deal breaker for Rudy.

 

6/6/11 - Tough Times For Anthony Weiner

                You'd have to be a Fox News host to have watched Rep. Weiner's press conference and not felt some real sympathy for this guy.  That was a hard thing to watch.  Interestingly, it was the Democratic talking heads who were merciless in their condemnation.  Clinton loyalists Carville and Begala were especially harsh.  But it looks like this is a scandal from which there is seemingly no return.  I knew him slightly when he was a freshman NYC Councilmember and I was head of intergovernmental affairs for the Mayor's Office.  All those brash traits that made him stand out also explain why in his hour of need he has so few defenders.

I'm sure everyone today is quoting the Watergate truism that It's Not the Crime But the Cover-up that will do you in.  Never more so then in Anthony Weiner's case.  It wasn't that he texted or Facebooked with young women not his wife.  It wasn't even that he lied about it.  It was how actively he lied and how hard he tried to deflect and dissemble.  For an elected official to go to these elaborate lengths of deception as his first instinct - even in an admittedly private matter - goes to the very heart of trust and leadership.  I've said for years now that one aspect of Mike Bloomberg's character that is so odious is his propensity to lie as his first reaction.  It speaks to his very nature as a man and leader.  But even Mayor-for-Life Mike wouldn't erect walls of deception like this. 

I completely sympathize with Weiner's desire and belief that prevaricating a little in the first instance would make this go away.  I even understand the anger he showed to the news media based on his belief that this was a minor matter and a private one to boot.  But his next reaction was the one that's the killer.  He invited news outlet after news outlet into his congressional office and lied his head off over and over again.  That you cannot do and hope to survive.  Every single news network has their own distinct footage of him lying with apparent ease.   It's now a very painful thing to watch knowing the truth.

He has also put his House colleagues in a very rough spot.  Speaker Boehner has set the bar extremely high with his lightening fast dispatch of Chris Lee.  Boehner said they would be different this time and he was true to his word.  Nancy Peolosi on the other hand has behaved as one would expect.  Like in the Rangel matter, she hopes this will go to the Ethics Committee to die.  All the while claiming the Democratic leadership took action.  Moreover, they will claim it cannot be commented upon because, "it's under investigation by the Ethics Committee."  That's the real reason she sent it there; she wants to resume talking about Medicare as quickly as possible.  And she took the easiest possible path towards doing that.

Nothing new about these House Democrats.  How refreshing it would have been had she immediately called for him to step down after his press conference.  I am assuming she asked him to privately when they spoke before it began and he refused.  That would have set a new tone and tried in some small measure to reestablish their ethical credibility.  It would have also shown Boehner that he's not the only one who can act like a leader.  But she didn't.  And in the process did herself, her party, her colleagues and Weiner himself no favors. 

Just like the mere fact that Tiny Fey continues to breath dooms any hope that Sarah Palin has of being president, those dozens of interviews on digital disc have now finished any hope of the mayoralty for Weiner.  He can win another term from the 9th, that's doable.  But it will take years to wash away those interviews and his contrived indignation. 

I hate when reporters and commentators feel the need at moments like this to label the matter 'a tragedy.'  A promising career cut short, what potential.  I don't think he thinks of himself or his life as tragic.  I think he's a cocky, arrogant and talented guy who had too much success too early.  This is evidence of a lack of maturity - his behavior that got us here as well as his reaction.  Moments like this are profoundly sobbering.  He doesn't know this yet but this whole thing will make him a better man, husband and maybe someday a better political figure.

 

6/4/11 REALLY?!?, Gov. Barbour, REALLY?!?

                You know that SNL/Weekend Update segment called, REALLY?!?  At the Faith & Freedom Coalition today Haley Barbour made a Mitch Danielsesque proposition to the faithful that they forgo criticising the nominee if he takes a social position they can't embrace. That's sensible enough.  Then, in response to reporter's question if there were any one position a nominee could take that he could absolutely not embrace, including tax increases, he said nothing was off the table if you got enough in return for it.  REALLY? Gov. Barbour, REALLY?!?  After that he told the reporter her question was "Stupid."

Stupid?  It may have been the best question leading to the most revealing answer of that silly gathering.  While I generally applaud Gov. Daniels' call to put aside social issues and focus on economics, there have to be some principles that are just that, principles.  Would the Democrats support legislation criminalizing all abortions after 20 weeks? Of course not, they are a pro-choice party.  Nothing gained in return would make that acceptable. 

What lobbyist Haley Barbour revealed today is what many Americans fear is true of all their elected officials: that they have no core ideals and everything is always on the table.  There's a big difference between trading away fundamental beliefs and willing to forgo taking up all the oxygen in a presidential campaign on a very long term policy goal - banning abortions.  The TV punditry thinks Barbour's position is that of a realist and they appalud him.  The American people, however, do not.

Haley Barbour tells us tax increases are possible.  What else is possible from Republican leaders?  Another stimulus package?  More bailouts?  Permitting an Iranian nuclear capacity?  Is there anything worth manning the barricades for?  I think the nominee hopefuls had better denounce Gov. Barbour's 'Washington as usual' philosophy but quick.  Remember, they were supposed to be different this time around.

 

6/3/11 - Birthers, Truthers & Gen. Hayden

                In yesterday's Wall Street Journal former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden pleads a case that in addition to Birthers and Truthers (9/11 conspiracy theorists) we should add  'Interrogation Deniers'  to the list of things we all should all roundly reject in our civic discourse.  What he means precisely is that love "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" or loathe them, honest intellectual debate should acknowledge once and for all that they produced results and probably none more so then in the lead-up to the Bin Laden compound raid. 

He's very passionate about this in his op-ed.  Interestingly - and in my view tellingly - all the while he is pushing his chair as fast and far away from the table as possible in reminding us that he never personally ordered any of these measures to be performed himself. 

He ends the piece with a challenge.  To all those interrogation deniers who deplore the use of these methods, why not just call for the destruction of the fruits of those interrogations; namely, shred all intelligence gathered from those sessions and prohibit their use in all future data analysis.  Gen. Hayden I accept your challenge. 

You may recall about 15 years ago there was a brief but intense controversy within the medical community surrounding the work product from Dr. Mengele's experiments in Aushwitz.  It turned out amidst the horror he may have produced some useful medical findings.  Well guess what?  The outrage surrounding the proposed use of that research was so great and universal that the idea was squashed within days.  The notion was so offensive to the average conscience that even the potential for some good was outweighed by revulsion to this application of the scientific method.  "Shouldn't some good come out of all of that suffering," was the medical community's question.  The resounding answer was, "We'd rather find it another way, even if it takes a few more years of new medical trials."  That's my answer to Gen Hayden.

There's a reason we used to shy away from installing military officers in civilian defense and intelligence posts.  The requisite mindset of a warrior is not the same for the civilian leader.  To argue they are interchangeable is absurd.  It may make perfect sense if you've been inculcated in a world where it's logical to do whatever is necessary to get an enemy on the battlefield to divulge the location of the enemy's guns in order to prevent your troops from being shortly ambushed to argue for the need for torture; however wrong that position may be intellectually.  But you can't take that battlefield commander and make him the civilian head of DoD or the CIA.  We never used to do that.  We were very clear on not doing that.  The one exception was always the NSA, which until recently had a narrow focus and no major policy input - you directed the NSA, you weren't directed by them.

These torture advocates like to pretend that since 9/11 we have faced dozens, maybe hundreds of Jack Bauer moments.  There's a nuclear bomb going to go off somewhere in the city in one hour and the guy sitting in front of you knows where it is and how to disarm it.  What do you do?  Yea, given a Jack Bauer moment I sure do get the moral dilemma.  But I am here to tell you that not one Jack Bauer moment has occured since 9/11.  In the same way that the Congress and the courts are continually justifying and excusing lazy police work by allowing shody searches, these torture advocates try and excuse their cause by saying it speeds up intelligence gathering.   First, there is no evidence that's true.  Second, sure everything in life is speedier if you let the government run amok.  Even I'll concede that.  The question becomes, if you want to endorse those practices then you're going to end up living in East Germany and not the United States.  It's intellectually dishonest to argue you can do both simultaneously.  Freedom and the U.S. or police state and East Germany.  There is no happy middle as they would argue.

This Frank Luntzian world where torture becomes 'Enhanced Interrogation Techniques' only weakens our moral character.  I would have way more respect for these proponents of torture if they would call it that and not try and be cute with this focus group tested phraseology.  You want to torture people?  Then man-up by openly advocating it and call it by its name.  I realize, although we refuse to acknowledge it, that America's sense of right and wrong has changed dramatically over the last decade.  This phony and unwinable War on Terror leads us to do and condone some awful things that are/were anathema to the American sensibility.  I see almost no hope for change when both political parties agree no change is needed.  Two weeks ago the Supreme Court essentially revoked the Fourth Amendment and Pres. Obama now supports nearly every extra-Constitutional measure of the Bush Presidency.  Where's the hope?  I see none.

The blame, in my view, for this continuing debate about torture rests squarely with Pres. Obama.  "Huh," you say.  Obama?  But he banned it.  Not good enough.  I have said since he took office that if he did not make a full-throated effort to investigate and fully expose the Constitutional excesses and abuses of the Bush years then those defenders of torture, rendition, secret prisons, wireless wiretaps, etc., would continue to defend them as a rational policy choice instead of what they are, criminal acts.  

That John Yoo regularly appears on the Op-Ed page of a national newspaper espousing his views without ever having been federally investigated (and I don't mean that joke, whitewash Holder investigation) is to my way of thinking criminal.  The net result is that this man teaches law in a prestigious law school.  He's a law professor!!! I simply can't get my head around that.  Imagine Eichmann having not been executed but sent to prison and upon release taking up a post teaching Constitutional Law at Heidelberg.  Would that be acceptable in civil society?  No, it would not.  Every time John Yoo appears in the WSJ or on Fox News he, and you, can thank Barack Obama. 

Gen. Hayden, Rick Santorum, Fox News, Giuliani, Cheney they are all wrong and always will be on the subject of torturing people.  No amount of useful information - and there is still no evidence that any was produced, notwithstanding Gen. Hayden's vehement protests - can justify losing our national soul.  It's wrong to torture people.  It was wrong on Sept. 10 and it's wrong today.  It's wrong to do it on U.S. soil, it's wrong to do it at Gitmo and it's wrong, as well as cowardly, to send victims overseas to have it done instead.  It should not be acceptable in the United States of America to say otherwise and not be universally denounced.  But thanks to President Obama, you can not only say it, you're paid to champion it at UC Berkeley.

 

6/2/11 - I Too Was Hacked

                What would the Chinese want with me?  In precisely the manner described in today's papers, my Gmail account was hacked 10 days ago.  I can say this with absolute 'certitude.'   A forwarding address was added to my settings and all my incoming mail was forwarded to someone with a Yahoo account that had a .UK extension.  Because Google absolutely, positively offers no customer support features, I had to post a request for help on one of their forums to figure out why this was happening.  Sure enough, in the Gmail settings a forwarding address had been inserted.  I deleted it and the next day it was back again.  Only then did I belatedly realize I had better change my password.  Stupid me.  Since then, nothing. 

Why am I telling you this?  Two reasons: 1) I thought it was kind of interesting; and 2) Clearly Google and the Federal Government are lying when they say that this attack was aimed solely at "senior government officials."   I am surely not that.  If this happened to little ole me, be assured it's happened to thousands more Gmail customers.  Google claims they sent letters to all those hacked.  I received no such communication from them.  I assume with good reason.  Naturally Google has a clear corporate interest in not telling us that many, many more of its user's accounts were hacked than it's letting on. 

With Google's security this bad and its total lack of any customer support, how could anyone think of adopting the Google model of Cloud computing?  Do away with all software on your PC and rely solely on Google's servers for your applications and document storage?  A business model that weak and full of holes could only come from say, a Brooklyn Congressman.

 

 

6/2/11    The ABCs Of Gerald Laughner's Incompetence

                Last week I was reading on Yahoo News about the court's designation of Gerald Laughner as incompetent to stand trial.  I then read some of the most vicious and hate-filled posts in response to that story.  People were saying the most vile things.  These people have absolutely no connection to this case or the victims and yet they wanted, in one man's words, to see him, "sliced open from the balls to the neck like a pig."  I worry for the future of this country.  Not because of the Laughners - there aren't very many of them - but because of the millions who have this irrational need and taste for blood and revenge outside any logical emotional reaction. 

Yea, Laughner killed your daughter, I can understand.  Laughner killed your best friend, totally get that.  But this all stood in marked contrast to one of the actual victims who said that he was fine how things were proceeding and had no problem with the interim finding of incompetence.  And this guy was shot twice by Laughner!! 

You may or may not know this but I too was found incompetent to stand trial in the exact same manner as Laughner (both federal cases).  With that in mind, I thought maybe I could offer-up some insight and clarity as to this process since most people don't understand it and confuse it with a defense claim of insanity. 

First, there are basically two grounds for a psychiatric determination of incompetence in the federal system: 1) You cannot understand the proceedings.  Maybe like Laughner you're too whacked out (that's not a psychiatric term) or maybe you have an IQ of 12.  In either case, you cannot try someone for a crime who has no concept of what's happening to them at trial; and 2) You cannot aid in your own defense.  Meaning, for whatever reason, you are too out of it to help and consult with your attorney on matters relating to your case.

I fell into the second category.  The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) psychologist found that my depression was so severe that I was unable to aid in my own defense.

Initially the court orders you sent for a mental evaluation.  The BOP has 45 days to perform the evaluation.  The doctor assigned to your case can ask for a proforma 45-day extension that is almost always granted since the back log is huge and they almost never get them done in the first 45 days.  The BOP doctor then makes a recommendation and forwards that to the court. 

The BOP made a finding and a recommendation to the court that Laughner was incompetent.  The judge can reject the recommendation and proceed but that never happens because it would be overturned on appeal and the whole trial would have been for naught.  So the judge accepts the recommendation and then by statute the defendant is sent to a Federal Medical Center (FMC) for "Restoration of Competency."  FMCs are BOP prisons that also have a major medical component to them.  There aren't very many of them in the country and in a high profile case only three would be considered: FMC Butner, FMC Rochester or FMC Springfield.  Laughner was sent to FMC Springfield. 

The strange part, as someone who was so designated, is that technically you are being sent to this FMC by order of the U.S. Attorney General for Restoration of Competency.  The law requires the AG to make that designation, so all the court papers say that.  I kept thinking to myself, "Does John Ashcroft really know he's sending me here?"  Of course he didn't, but you can't help thinking that when you see it in writing 20 times. 

After that, the BOP has six months to restore you to competency and report back to the court (I heard a news analyst say it was four months, but I think they misspoke unless the law has been changed).  You cannot be forced to take drugs, only undergo testing and possibly therapy.  The doctors can ask the court to order the forced use of drugs if the defendant refuses.  But that happens rarely during that first six month period.  It's mostly testing and patient history.  Unless you're a very, very high profile case like Laugner's, a defendant would only see his doctor a few times face-to-face in those 45 or 90 days.

If, after that first six months, the BOP doctors report to the court that you have been restored to competency the defense can contest that finding and have a court hearing using their own doctors as witnesses and cross examine the Government's.  In the vast majority of cases that is the determination to the court by the BOP's doctors after that first six month period.  My guess would be over 90% of the time.  At that point the case goes to trial.

If, however, the doctors say they have not restored your competency they get another six months.  You know how some people believe that if you get five or more cards in Blackjack you automatically win the hand?  That's not true of course and there is a similar myth associated with the restoration of competency.  Many defendants so designated believe that after four findings (six months x four) you are automatically deemed officially incompetent to stand trial.  That's a prison myth but many believe it and quote it as fact nonetheless. 

In reality this process - usually in very high profile cases - can go on forever.  In a run of the mill case - at some point - a court will find the defendant incompetent to stand trial and he will be committed; usually to a psych ward in an FMC.  If at some point - either in the near term or many years down the line - the BOP doctors determine he has been restored to competency, they are required to release him and the commitment is lifted.  Furthermore, you will never have a criminal record - you weren't convicted of anything.

One such case where this is in fact going on forever, involves a defendant I served time with.  His name is Russell Weston and you may remember him as the person who shot up the U.S. Capitol and killed two Capitol Hill Police Officers.  We were in the same unit when I was at FMC Butner being restored to competency.  He's still there.  Every six months or so his doctors go to court and claim that he's still incompetent.  The BOP shrinks say he's a paranoid schizophrenic.  This has been happening with him since 1998.  The prosecutors in his case have been desperate for years to put him to death. 

Trust me, I am no doctor, but he's faking.  I knew the guy and can tell you from firsthand knowledge that this is all an act.  He has a very comfy set-up there (relatively speaking since the alternative is The Needle in Terre Haute).  He was an obese man with porcine features and giant swollen legs due to inactivity who confined himself to a wheelchair.  I must admit, I did not like that guy.

My closest friend at Butner - armed bank robbery - also had been committed after having been found incompetent to stand trial.  He was eventually restored to competence and released.  He too had gamed the system.  He had issues to be sure, but not enough to have earned the commitment.  He and his girlfriend had laid clues after his arrest to help in the finding.  Our doctor always referred to him as a "charming sociopath" and warned me not to become friends with him.  Who listens to doctors?

I've given you two examples of men who have gamed the system.  The reality in the BOP however is that there are so, so many inmates with severe mental problems who should never have been found to be competent to stand trial.  Instead they were deemed competent and received in many instances long sentences.  It is heartbreaking to see these men who clearly had no knowing concept of their crimes but due to awful public defenders and an out of control justice system bent on incarceration they were sent away for decades.  Yea, there a few Russell Westons who sneak by who shouldn't but mostly BOP doctors issue findings of competence to defendants who aren't close to being mentally culpable.  The BOP is guilty of so many awful things, but that may be its greatest sin.

 

What's Rudy Up To??

                With six months to go before the first caucus, it's still not clear who is and who isn't running for the GOP nomination for president.  This week's news will only help to make that picture even more opaque. 

Rudy Giuliani is topping a new CNN Poll with 16%.  Further, he is headed to New Hampshire to speak at a series of GOP fundraisers on the very day Mitt Romney is finally announcing his candidacy.  Rep. Peter King tell us that he's as good as running (Program Note: For this election season the role of Guy Molinari will be played by Peter King).  The news of this has caused the punditry to become all atwitter - literally and figuratively. 

But what does it mean?  What's Rudy up to?  Maybe I can offer a little insight at this juncture.  We will know more when we analyze the text and nuance of his remarks on Thursday. { For the record, I find far more intriguing the potential of a Pataki candidacy then a Giuliani run, but hey I chose the blog name and you leave with thems who brought you. }

First, do I believe that six months ago Rudy had the slightest inkling of running?  No, I do not.  It was not being seriously considered.  But he thinks maybe something has changed.  He and his advisors are looking at the current crop of candidates and concluding what we are all concluding; namely, that this is the weakest field in living memory.  They then ask themselves three questions: 1. Is Obama beatable?  They answer yes;  2. Can any of the current candidates defeat him?  They answer no; and 3. They then ask the most important question - Can Rudy beat him?  They're not sure, but they think possibly yes.  Hence the last minute trip to NH to suss this out.

Let me digress for a second to give you my thoughts on where Barack Obama stands.  If you look at an incumbent with his record, 2 1/2 years into his presidency, can he be beaten?  On paper, Obama is eminently beatable.  But that's not the issue.  Campaigns aren't won on paper.  They are fought on the ground, in the ether and in the zeitgeist.   So is President Barack Obama beatable?  Probably not.  And certainly not by Romney, Pawlenty, Bachmann or Paul.  Huntsman?  No one can answer that question yet.  But let me pause and say a word about Michele Bachmann.  She is no dummy.  I can't say why she makes these silly gaffes, but she is one articulate, on- message cookie.  She has a viewpoint and she expresses it very well.  Laugh now, but she would give Rudy a serious run in a debate.

George Will thinks the nominee will be Tim Pawlenty.  But most are betting that Mitt Romney will be the nominee.  Here's what every political analyst knows but is prevented from saying by our current political mores.  Call it the Juan Williams exclusion.  No Republican Mormon can be elected president.  A Mormon Democrat?  Possibly.  Republican?  Never.  It's all about the numbers.  What Karl Rove knew very well was that short a popular candidate or a winning record you had to increase the base in order to win.  At a minimum, you have to start with the base.  That base is comprised largely of Christian fundamentalists.  I, a Jew, am closer to Christ in their estimation than Mormon Mitt Romney.  This is not simply a case of JFK's Catholicism. 

Protestants may not have liked his Catholic faith - many were openly hostile to it -  but they did not view it as alien or otherworldly  (Protestantism after all sprung from a rejection of the rigid orthodoxy of the Catholic Church).  That is precisely how Christian fundamentalists view Mormons.  He might as well proclaim himself a Wican for all the difference it's going to make to the Born Again base.  The Bible Belt?  Their Bible is not The Book of Mormon.  Joseph Smith a prophet, gold plates and sacred undergarments are outright heretical to their beliefs.  To these people you might as well put a sign on Romney's forehead that says, "Enemy of Christ."   Could this be offset with independents and Democrats?  Maybe, but not by pro-choice, pro-life, pro RomneyCare, anti-ObamaCare, flip-flopping Mitt Romney.  So Romney has no chance. As for Tim Pawlenty, that smile perpetually plastered on his face will creep everyone out in short order.  Trust me.  So who's left? 

The punditry on the right looks at 2010 and thinks it can be replicated in 2012.  Love em or hate em but the Tea Party was a genuine phenomenon in 2010.  The right candidate could harness that energy and passion in 2012.  But that requires a dynamic leader.  Dynamic in his persona, or lacking that, in his/her ideas.  As Joe Klein said this weekend, in all his years covering Romney he has never seen the man move a crowd with his oratory up off their butts.

So here we are at the landscape that Rudy surveys.  But that's only the start.  Let's say he thinks he can do this.  That leads to more questions in Giulianiland.  Namely:

1. Something akin to the First Question on Passover.  Why would this run be any different and produce a different result then the last one?  These are not very introspective people over at Giuliani Partners.  I don't suspect they will spend a whole lot of time finding fault within themselves for 2008.  Their problem rests with the fact that Rudy permitted not an inch of daylight between himself and George W. Bush in 2008: tax cuts, unpaid Medicare Part D, Iraq, Afghanistan, deficits, Gitmo, No Child Left Behind, the Bailout and torture. No disagreement - zero.  The Republican Party of 2012 doesn't agree with half those things.  Certain wings of the party today agree with none of them.  How far we've come when freshman Rep. Allen West (R-FL) couldn't disavow Bush enough on Fox News Sunday.  Giuliani/Bush are not aligned with this fast changing Republican landscape.

2. Do we have a message for 2012?  We didn't in 2008, so what's changed?  The circumstances or our message?  Rudy is most unfortunate to find himself in an election year that will favor technocrat wonks.  While I always believe an inspiring message can overcome a candidate's deficiencies with the minutiae, this election is going to require a real command of the federal budget.  More than that, milquetoast responses on very serious issues won't cut it.  You'll recall that the Giuliani campaign was singular in its refusal to provide specific proposals on a whole range of issues in 2008.  Won't work this time.  Bold, not safe, is what's going to win this day.

3. Is the money still there?  He raised and wasted millions on his last run with a top-heavy, expensive roster of Bush staffers that produced one (1) delegate and a third place showing in must-win Florida.  I don't think the Giuliani money machine can crank out those donor checks like they used to.   But we'll see.

4. Can he re-introduce himself?  Is there an alternate Guiliani narrative that can attract the very large part of the electorate that simply now hates him.  But more than that, those who see him as yesterday's news.  Let's recall that there have been many Rudy Giulianis.  There was Rudy the take-no-prisoners U.S. Attorney.  Rudy the obstinate and failed Mayoral candidate in 1989.  Rudy the coalition building, dynamic leader of 1993.  Mayor Rudy of the his first term.  Mayor Rudy of the second term.  Rudy the comforter-in-chief and decisive, man of action after 9/11.  Rudy the consultant without scruples.  Rudy, the Dick Cheney lite of 2008 presidential politics.  And finally, Rudy Giuliani proponent and advocate of torture.

Here's his problem on this front.  Yes, there were many Nixons.  But what Nixon knew was that the Nixon of 1960 not only could not win in '68,' but wasn't what America wanted.  So he proclaimed a New Nixon.  Rudy's problem is that he sees no need for a New Giuliani like he did in 1993.   He needs a do-over and he's unwilling to provide himself with one.

Rudy knew that the 1989 Giuliani that existed in the public's mind was not going to win in 1993 so he reinvented himself, albeit in a very genuine and non-manufactured way.  It was unique in that respect in American politics.  But he claims to be fine with who he is now.  That is, to many, a seemingly heartless millionaire who runs away from, rather than embrace, his positive record of service save for four months.

5. Lastly, the problem that has no easy answer. His clients and the media.  You thought I was going to say his personal life, didn't you?   

Rudy doesn't realize this, but he had the easiest ride of any major candidate from the media.   2012 will be like a bloody horror movie compared to what he went through in 2008.  For starters, he can't refuse to release the client list of Giuliani Partners.  The law firm, maybe.  The rest, absolutely not.  The media simply won't tolerate it this time.  Moreover, they know he has represented some very unsavory people.  Not a chance they are going to let him keep that list to himself this time. Next, many journalists are pissed at themselves and their profession for the fawning way they treated him last time. 

Most journalists don't like Rudy and they really hated his campaign staff.  They want payback for the way they mishandled him in 2008.  That may not be fair, but it's a fact.  I can't tell you how many reporters for major newspapers that I corresponded with after I launched this blog told me the exact same thing.  They may not be printing everything I am writing on here in their papers now.  But their editors told all of them, let him run for president again and we will go back over every post on Rudy Veritas.  I am in no way overestimating my importance or that of this blog.  But I tell you from direct conversations with reporters that these posts will be made into news stories should he run. 

The largest issue for Giulianiland is what would a repeat of 2008 mean for their brand.  2008 redux would be disastrous, perhaps fatally, to the empire built around the post 9/11 mystique of Rudy Giuliani (Lest we forget, on 9/10/01 Rudy had an approval rating in the low forties in NYC).  Is this a sure enough bet to gamble away everything?  That's what this will come down to in the end.

I get tagged sometimes as a Rudy hater or Rudy critic.  I am, to be sure, a critic.  I only hate what he's become because the promise was so great.  He was such a talented man with a really different vision.  And now he's a shill for despotic sheikdoms and a regular on Fox News.  I know there's a large segment of society and my party that considers that the very definition of success.  Sadly, I do not.

Well stay tuned and let's see what Rudy says and how he says it on Thursday.

 

 

Reaction To Ray Harding's Sentencing

                I noticed that on the day of and day after Ray Harding's sentencing there was a spike in views to this site.  I am sure many of you might have wanted to know my reaction.  Well my reaction took place away from the blogosphere on that day.  My reaction took the form of a complaint against Gerald Shargel filed with the Disciplinary Committee of the NYS Bar Association.  A copy of which is attached herein:  RAH LETTER

Did it bother me that my father and his lawyer sought to scapegoat me as the cause of all his self-created troubles?  Not really.    Ray has become a complete coward, so I honestly expected no better.  Mafia bosses don't treat their children this badly.  Still, however, a shocking thing to read.  Bernie Madoff agreed to all the prosecution asked including a 150 year prison sentence in order to protect his wife and sons.  Ray Harding throws his son on the pyre at every conceivable opportunity.  I just watch him in awe and wonder.  What a despicable and decrepit shadow of himself he's become.  Why have I not spoken to the man in eight years?  The answer is on display every time he throws me under this bus of his own creation.

I say that because as you'll see in the letter to the NYSBA I have no idea what Ray is talking about when he's blaming me for his troubles.  He claims to have conspired to defraud the pension fund of $800,000 out of some necessity to pay my legal bills.  Total news to me when I first read it in April 2008 as part of Attorney General Cuomo's complaint. I never asked Ray for a dime since before I retained Shargel through to this moment and had no knowledge of any payment ever made from him to Shargel. 

But as I say in the letter, every law enforcement and judicial player in this Ray Harding drama accepts his 'excuse'.  If that's true, then Jerry Shargel is guilty of gross ethical misconduct at a minimum and perhaps some criminal activity.  The time for casting about blame is over.  The Bar Assoc. needs to find out the truth as accepted by two Attorneys General and act accordingly against Shargel and stop him from doing this to any future clients.

 

 

An Era of Sleaze Comes to an End

The end of an era has definitely arrived in the seedy underbelly of sleaze journalism in New York.  For nearly forty years four journalists represented all that was wrong with journalism in New York City.  They were holdovers from a liberal era long since repudiated by history and the electorate.  An era they longed to revisit and could never recover from its end.  They fashioned themselves muckrakers in the grandest and noblest tradition.  But they were never heirs to Tarbell or Sinclair.  Rather, they practiced the dark arts of journalism. 

Jack Newfield, Joe Conason, Wayne Barrett and later Tom Robbins were all at various points in their careers investigative reporters for the Village Voice.  Newfield had a varied career that balanced his years at the Voice.  Conason sought to rehabilitate himself and put distance between the years slinging sleaze and now working at Salon.  Only Barrett and Robbins clung to the hard, hard left views of their youth.  Moreover, they attempted to eviscerate anyone on the left who veered from the Stalinist orthodoxy of 60's radicalism.  They longed for a return of the Nixon presidency so they could march for his impeachment.  They longed for the Vietnam War so they could march for its end.  And they longed for Ronald Reagan so they could march against, well just about everything the man stood for. And they viscerally hate Barack Obama because in their view he has no appreciation of what his forbears struggled for in the 50's, 60's and 70's and therefore compromises on issues of conscience too readily.  In essence, black man gone soft.

Yesterday Barrett, the Voice's six figured reporter, was finally shown the door.  And we are lead to believe that Robbins resigned in sympathy (I'm assuming this was a save face agreement worked out by all parties).  Barrett's farewell letter in the Voice demonstrates once again the preening narcassim of the hard left.  New York will survive without Wayne Barrett.  Reporting will continue.  The sun will come up over City Hall and the NY Post and the NY Daily News will continue to run investigative pieces. 

The difference is that when those stories will be written in the future they will lack the poison pen and venomous slant that always accompanied a Robbins or Barrett piece and was there trademark.  Just as it was Newfield's and Conason's before them. 

There's nothing wrong with investigative journalism.  In fact, in NY it is not practiced enough.  But there are lines, as with any profession, that you do not cross.  You don't create news when there is nothing to report.  And you certainly never fabricate news in order to get a headline.  I watched all four of those men do just that, first to my father in the early 80's and then to me. 

In my father's case it was created smoke about his law firm's lobbying on behalf of Westway (the never built underground highway on NYC's West Side).  Week after week of front page stories in the Voice that amounted to nothing.  In mine, well you know from reading this blog that Tom Robbins - stymied by an inability to "get the goods" on me - worked with a source to create a series of headline grabbing internet chats purportedly from me.  He then fed the source info to help fabricate these chats and went so far as to instruct the source on which topics to manufacture so that the chats would coincide with that week's planned headline in the Voice.  It may well be the most dastardly act by a reporter that has gone serially under reported. 

 No one will miss these men.  Barrett says he's going to The Nation's think tank.  An oxymoron if one ever existed.  And Robbins?  Who knows.  He's spent most of his career getting bounced from the Voice to the NY Daily News and back again.  So maybe Mort Zuckerman will take him back for stint number 3 or 4.  All I can say is that unlike Newfield who had other achievements in his career to offset his Voice years, these men will be mourned by no one.  When their time comes it will be in a small labor meeting hall somewhere with octogenarian hard leftists wearing little hammers and sickles standing over their coffins reminiscing about the good old days of Henry Wallace. 

One chapter in a sorry legacy of sleaze journalism ended yesterday.  But like cockroaches, these men always resurface.  Here's hoping any prospective employer is as smart or smarter then Voice editor Tony Ortega and doesn't hire these sad, tired old men in the first place.

 

A Sad Potraititure

How bad is Rudy Giuliani's official portrait unveiled this week at City Hall?  Astoundingly bad!  When I first saw it I thought it was a younger Jack Welch, the former head of GE.  But I thought no, it's someone else.  Who is it?  I racked my brain trying to think who it was this artist had painted instead of Rudy.  And then like a flash it came to me.  And once I figured it out I was at first bemused and then shocked to think that for all posterity this was who everyone  would see in Rudolph Giuliani's portrait.  I'll get to who it is residing in Rudy's frame in a moment.

Official portraits need to meet two tests: 1) does this represent the man as he is remembered (i.e. great general, captain of industry, sports legend, etc.); and 2) does it look like him.  Unless the artist painting you is Picasso, the depiction should be a good one - it should at least be recognizable.  In years gone by official portraits sought to depict the man as he was in his time, during his achievements.  Lately - and probably because they are produced years after while the subject is still alive - the paintings show the man contemporaneously.  And that's a shame.  Would we rather see Ulysses Grant as he was in his later years wracked with throat cancer on the $50 bill?  No.  We want to see him at his military peak capturing Vicksburg.

I happened to be at the last mayor's portrait unveiling.  It took place a year or two  after David Dinkins had left office.  We were in the Public Hearing Chamber at City Hall (since transformed into the idiotic bullpen).  Dinkins' portrait was interesting because it showed him not as he sees himself - a strong, proud leader - but rather as an old man, seated and looking rather frail.  Interesting choice by the artist, I thought.  The one unmistakable fact was that the artist had talent.  The facial likeness of David Dinkins was spot on.  This was no one else's portrait.

Rudy's painting fails because he seeks so desperately to escape the man he was and whom we remember.  Strikingly odd since that's how he makes his sustenance these days.  He now wants us and all future generations to remember only what he's become.

Take the flag for instance.  Once past the terrible depiction you soon notice the American flag pin on his lapel.  I happen to know firsthand that old Rudy thought the wearing of these pins was reserved for right-wing politicians of low intellect seeking to impress simple-minded, flag waving, patriot yahoos.  With the possible exception of his last eight weeks in office, Rudy Giuliani never wore a flag lapel pin.  He wouldn't be caught dead in one.   But there it is.

He is wearing a navy pinstripe suit that he also never would have worn as Mayor.  And while never a natty dresser (he was a Men's Wearhouse shopper), he certainly wouldn't have been caught dead in so baggy and ill fitting a suit as he's portrayed in.  Put all that Yankees nonsense aside.  This is banker Rudy that we are meant to see; not poor, always broke, public servant Rudy.  This is the Rudy of Judith, not Donna.

Now who is it clear as day depicted in that painting?  It's Wayne Barrett!  Wayne Barret is a "journalist" who writes for the Village Voice.  Google him and find a 10 year old picture.  You'll be amazed at the resemblance.  Why is this shocking?

For those of you not from New York, try and imagine John D. Rockefeller, Sr. sitting for a portrait a century ago.  Upon completion the artist's rendering is not that of John D, but rather Ida Tarbell.  Or more recently, imagine the Bill Clinton portrait being unveiled and instead of Bill it's Ken Starr's likeness sitting in the frame.  Wayne Barrett is Rudy hater in-chief and has been so for the better part of two decades.  It is such an amazing likeness that I am hard pressed to believe this elderly painter didn't do it intentionally.

When I heard that his portrait was going to be unveiled I was eager to see it.  I had hoped that a painting could remind me of the lost man even if he himself no longer could.  But even in this I am disappointed.    I hope his friends and hangers on in the years to come take a good photograph from his mayoral years to a quality artist and commission a proper painting.  Rudy the man has morphed into something unrecognizable.  His official portrait shouldn't follow him.

 

ENDORSEMENTS IN NYS

Governor: Carl Paldino - I know, I know, I know.  Here's the thing:  I have known Andrew Cuomo on and off since 1977.  I could not in any good consceince vote for him or recommend to any else that they do the same.  For those of you who remember, the tyranny of the 2nd Floor (Governor's Office) during the 80's was always referred to as 'The Cuomos.'  As in, the Cuomos want this guy destroyed or the Cuomos are out to get so and so. The plural in that did not reference Matlida.  It meant Andrew.  As paranoid, petty and meanspirited as Mario Cuomo was, the son is that without his dad's smarts.  That is a pretty toxic brew and not something I could endorse from first hand experience.  The Cuomos are bad, bad people.  It's highly unfortunate that he has been given a total free ride by Paladino on the issues in this campaign.  His record at HUD alone would have him 20 points behind if he were running in any other state this year. 

Moreover, the NY press has completely rolled over for him.  The NY Daily News's coverage should be considered an in-kind contribution to the Cuomo campaign.  All those years of late night drinking sessions with Daily News reporters and coulmnists at bars on Second Avenue are finally paying big dividends for Andrew.

The thing that really galled me was something I read in the WSJ a few weeks ago.  Both Andrew and Mario were quoted as saying extremely complimentary things about former Gov. Hugh Carey.  On its face that wouldn't be shocking since Hugh Leo Carey is arguably the greatest governor NYS had in the 20th century.  But if you know the backstory it's shameful and shameless that those two would go on the record singing his praises.

Hugh Carey made Mario Cuomo.  With no Carey there is no Cuomo, Mario or Andrew.  First as his Secretary of State, then his choice for Mayor in 1977 and finally his Lt. Governor.  And how was he repaid?  As I said, shamefully.  I was there in 1977 when Mario would call our house daily to bitch and moan about how Carey wasn't supporting him enough.  And  in 1978 when Carey's first  Lt. Gov - Mary Anne Krupsak - primaried him and lost, Carey's choice for his next Lt. Governor was Mario.   Mario called incessantly whining that Carey was taking too long in announcing his nomination.  Ray had to constantly calm him down and assumed the role of intermediary between them.  And once in office Mario never stopped complaining that he wasn't included in the Carey inner circle.

Now for those of us with memories, we recall that right after Mario was elected governor it was time to unveil the new convention center in NYC.  Everyone know that it had to be named for Carey.  He dreamed it up, created the state agency and saw it through.  It was supposed to be a fitting tribute to him and his cement  legacy.  Everyone was in agreement and fully expected it to happen. 

But Mario had the agency name it instead for a Republican Senator, Jacob Javits.  Javits was a fine man and a great U.S. Senator.  But the convention center was Hugh Carey's. 

Every governor of NY for the last 50 years has had his official papers published after leaving office.  After publishing just the first year of the Carey Administration, Mario had the funding cut for the other seven.  It would take Republican Governor George Pataki to finally put back the money for completing the project 12 years later.

And what did Mario Cuomo learn from his Carey years?  Never to give someone as ungrateful and treacherous as himself a leg up.  He ignored his first Lt. Governor, former Yonkers Mayor Alfred  DelBello, to such an extent that he resigned.  So happy was Mario not to have a number two he didnt' bother to fill the post until his re-election necessitated it.   His second was a bright guy, Stan Lundine, who became a joke for how totally out of the loop he was during the Cuomo years.  And Mario's Secretary of State?  He ignored her as well.  Well that's not technically correct.  According to every knowledgeable source he was cheating on Matilda for many years with his bow legged Secretary of State, Gail Shaffer.  So I guess that's not totally slighting her.  Just in her official capacity.

These slights, and the Carey badmouthing on the 2nd floor, went on for over a decade.  It was done by 'The Cuomos' - Mario and Andrew.  It's not surprising that Andrew would choose to model a successful governorship on Hugh Carey and not on his father's dismal one.  That only fits with political smarts and the historical record.  But those of us who remember are sickened to hear him now say these laudotory things without the accompanying apology and acknowledgement of the shabby treatment Hugh Carey received at their hands.  As I said, these are bad, bad people.

Is Carl Paladino crazy?  I don't know.  But just think of this.  I'm gay and 'll be voting for Carl Paladino.  That alone should tell you just how bad I believe an Andrew Cuomo governorship will be.

Comptroller:  Boy, am I impressed with this Harry Wilson.  He is a true Arthur Levitt heir.  I head him at length on Larry Kudlow's radio show last week.  He's smart, honest, knowledgeable and articulate.  He probably won't win and it will be us - NYS's taxpayers - who will be the losers, not Mr. Wilson.

Attorney General - Yes, I'd like to see a Louis Lefkowitz type AG who was from the other party to monitor Mr. Cuomo.  But that is not what we have in Dan Donovan.  From the Bloomberg backing to a single Wall Street firm bankrolling 25% of his campaign, he has shown himself to be for sale and singularly unimpressive.  Eric Schniederman is too left for my taste, but I think he'll be an okay AG. And if we have someone who actually attempts to balance prosecutorial fervor with some defendant's rights, that would not be such a bad thing.

 

A FEW PREDICTIONS - Senate Winners:

Alaksa - Murkowski    California - Boxer  Colorado - Bennett   Illinois - Kirk      Kentucy - Paul   Nevada - Angle   Pennsylvania - Toomey   Washington - Rossi    West Virginia - Manchin    Wisconsin - Feingold

Governor:

California - Brown    Colorado - Tancredo    Florida - Scott     Mass. - Baker   Ohio - Kasich   Rhode Island - Chafee 

Here's my wild-card outside prediction for next week's election (besides Tancredo & Feingold):  Rick Perry loses, Bill White wins.

 

Restoring Some Sanity

A very big win for freedom loving Americans today.  The Supreme Court, which is having a mixed year as far as I'm concerned, redeemed itself by intelligently narrowing the scope of the Federal honest services statute.

The statute was always meant to be applied to elected officials who took bribes or kickbacks.  It was intended to convey a serious revulsion at officeholders who were selling out the people who elected them.  It was never intended: (a) for private citizens; and (b) for officeholders who are just venal or "merely" corrupt; there are plenty of other laws to apply in those situations. 

But as is the inherent danger with an unchecked out of control central government, the statute was misapplied by the U.S. Justice Department in more and more indictments.  It became a catch-all charge like wire fraud.  Anyone could basically be charged with not providing honest services.  And as we have seen in both public corruption as well as non-public cases the Government went wild applying this statute to anyone and anything.  Under the Government's interpretation of the statute, any CEO could be charged under it if he, say played golf during business hours. Thereby depriving his stockholders of his full honest services for which they pay him.  Rudy Giuliani used to take off most Fridays in the last 3 years of his Mayoralty to play golf.  Were the Feds inclined to get him, that could surely be one charge under the old use of honest services.  Yup, it's that crazy and out of control.

Jeffrey Skilling of Enron fame bravely objected to both his trial and the underlying charge.  As I have written before, Jeff Skilling's prosecution was a travesty.  The real villain in the entire Enron matter was Andrew Fastow.  He cut himself a sweet deal (including for his wife) in exchange for ratting on Skilling and Ken Lay.  Were Skilling and Lay lousy managers?  You bet!  Did they take unnecessary risks?  Absolutely.  But their actions were far, far tamer and less criminally suspect than what we saw by the major banks and investment houses over the last decade re: the sub prime housing market.  

I had hoped the Court would strike down the statute altogether.  They chose instead to narrow it back to what it was supposed to be in the first place, namely a check against graft-taking elected officials (although the decision covers non-elected officials, there are so few incidence of corporate execs actually taking bribes, it's meaningless to view today's result as anything but a restoration to its corrupt pol roots).  I think they probably got it right.  I don't object to its use in those limited situations.  Elected officials shouldn't take bribes or kickbacks and when they do it's perfectly appropriate to have a tailored law that addresses that.  Maybe called the NJ Law, since seemingly so many pols there are on the take and are so easily lured into selling out their office.

What will become apparent now once the appeals and motions start coming from those convicted under honest services and those awaiting trial, is how widely and egregiously the Justice Department has been misapplying this statue.

It's always good when the Court slaps back the hand of the ever encroaching, liberty draining Justice Department, as they did today.  Sadly, however, they do it too infrequently.

 

 

Chuck Schumer: The Spiro Agnew of 2010

I have a confession to make.  I've begun rooting for Harry Reid to be re-elected in Nevada.  Crazy, right?  I'm no Harry Reid fan.  I hate Obamacare.  I like most of what Sharon Angle has been talking about: eliminate the Dept of Education, repeal the 16th Amendment and reshape Social Security.  So why in the world would I be rooting for such a thing? 

I have to take you back to the early 1970's for the best analogy.  Back then the luckiest man on earth was Richard Nixon.  Why?  Because the only man the liberal Democrats - who overwhelmingly controlled Congress - hated more than him was his Vice President, Spiro Agnew.  Richard Nixon could have gone to the Reflecting Pool and shot busloads of tourists and no one would have impeached him.  No Democratic Congress was going to be responsible for President Agnew.  But then the past caught up with Spiro Agnew.  Some little business about roads and kickbacks while he was Governor of Maryland.  And that's when Richard Nixon's luck ran out.  

Gerald Ford was a 'Man of the House' and a perfectly palatable replacement to most Democrats, as both Vice President and President. 

Why do I mention this?  What could Watergate possibly have to do with this election?  Well, maybe more than you think.  I make two assumptions about this election.  One, that the Democrats will retain the Senate - closely, but retain it nonetheless.  Second, that these bizarre pieces I keep reading that Reid's successor will be Chuck Schumer are true.  I can't imagine why for one second his Senate colleagues would want this self promoting news hound as their leader, but by all accounts he's a shoo-in should Reid lose.  Now that would be very bad news.

If you think Harry Reid is pushing some left wing Obama agenda, just wait for Majority Leader Schumer.  It's too sickening to imagine.  Half of this country hates New York.  The other half hates Jews.  If you want a real kumbaya moment of the country coming together in Woody Allen's apocalyptic nightmare, Chuck Schumer's elevation to Majority Leader would be it.  The whole middle of the country would be united in their New York hating anti-semitism after seeing Chuck Schumer hour after hour on every cable news and talk show.  As a New York Jew, he is so distasteful that I might actually start being bigoted against myself.     It's not just his politics that makes him so loathsome.  It's that he's an unctuous opportunist.

I need no better example than one he provided 24 hours ago.  Yes, we all know I write about so-called 'sex offender' issues and how rotten the system is.  I'm sure you're tired of hearing from me on the topic.  But yesterday Sen Schumer - the man who invented the Sunday press conference - held a press avail to announce his intent to amend the Adam Walsh Act to prohibit law abiding so called 'sex offenders' from opening a wide range of private businesses.  Currently the Act prohibits their employment in a variety of professions receiving federal and state funds or licenses.  But if someone wants to open a childrens barber shop, let's say, no law prohibits that.  Well he wants to expand mightily the commerce these so-called sex offenders can't engage in.  And when asked what if this wholesale increase in banned professions prevents them from finding work, like the Grinch with a wry smile and a twinkle in his eye, he responded, "well that's just too bad."    

Now stay with me on this.  I am not making the point that it is highly doubtful the Courts would uphold this.  That to me seems obvious.  When I called him an unctuous opportunist I chose my words carefully.  Let's say you are one of the wacko majority who believes your child lives in mortal peril daily from millions of ravenous sex offenders.  Then Sen. Schumer's proposal sounds awesome, right?  Only one problem with his proposal that he failed to mention at his press conference.  The Adam Walsh Act is Federal legislation that requires the states to create new rules and standards.  It is not federal legislation as such.  It is a giant unfunded extremely costly mandate on the states.  Now you need to understand that this legislation only has meaning if the states enact its various provisions.  Without the states' adherence, the Act is just air.  So what's happened to the Act since its passage a few years back?  Out of fifty states only one has adopted its provisions.  And that state, Ohio, just basically flipped off the Feds via an Ohio Supreme Court decision that ruled Ohio's laws preeminent in these matters.  It was a very important 10th Amendment decision, even if it was just Ohio and not the U.S. Supreme Court.

So what's the net effect of Schumer's proposal - assuming it even passes both houses and becomes law?  Nothing.  It would be a provision to a law that no state, save one, is even adopting.  The Adam Walsh Act allowed states to seek two year waivers if they couldn't enact the new rules on time.  All states sought waivers and now most states have either past their waiver deadlines or are soon approaching them.  It's a horrible embarrassment to the Justice Department but they draw no attention to it for fear of looking feckless.

So Schumer got his press conference.  Every newspaper and TV station ran with the story.  It made big headlines.  Not a single one mentioned the 10th Amendment issues surrounding his proposal or that its chances of happening are near zero.  But another Sunday of TV and another Monday of headlines for Chuck Schumer.

It's less his anti sex offender zeal - remember he's the one who believes it's within the federal purview to mandate that private landlords of apt buildings don't hire sex offenders as superintendents - than his outright disdain for the 10th Amendment and the rights of states.  There is no issue for his Sunday press avails where he pauses and says, "you know, that's not really a federal matter, maybe I shouldn't demagogue on that."  That is what scares me so much about Majority Leader Schumer.  His total lack of respect for the states and their preeminent place in the Republic and the subordinate role of the Federal Government in most issues.  

I get the Tea Party and Fox News wants a win in Nevada.  I get the echo of sending another Democratic Majority Leader packing.  But is the nation going to be better off with a far left media whore like Chuck Schumer?  Are we going to see less Obama extremism or far more?  I think we know the answers to those questions.

If we were sure that the balance of the Senate hung by one seat, maybe I could get behind enthusiastically for Angle and ousting Harry Reid.  Then we would only have to sufferance Minority Leader Schumer.  But as I said, I believe the Democrats will hold on.  Therefore, I am not willing to spend 2 or 4 or a dozen years with Majority Leader Schumer and his far, far left, pro Washington agenda.

It is interesting that the only time Schumer rediscovers the 10th Amendment and the fact that he's actually representing a state of people and not advancing the cause of Washington, D.C. and the Federal bureaucracy is when it comes to the Wall Street firms who bankroll his campaigns.  Then Washington is being terribly unfair to the states and its policies harmful.  Not when the little guy is effected but when the Wall Street titans are under attack, that's when Schumer rediscovers that there's actually a state attached to his formal title.

It is beyond sad that this man who is so eminently beatable has lucked out to be from the state with the worst, most dysfunctional Republican Party.  In any other state, with his record, in this election year, he would be fighting for his life.  In New York?  He has an opponent that 99.9% of the New York electorate can't even name (it's Gary Berntsen, by the way).

I ask you America, to think long and hard before you inflict the nation with Minority Leader, or worse, Majority Leader Schumer.  If I can find something to like about dull, long-winded Harry Reid, surely you can.

 

 

BP - A Rush to Judgment?

For years after he was defeated for re-election in the Democratic Primary, Ed Koch would routinely tell people - half jokingly, "You threw me out and now you must be punished."  He was of course referring to the nightmare years of the Dinkins Administration.

We now apparently live in a parallel dimension where we are suffering for having re-elected our Mayor, not defeated him.  Not content with hijacking the City Charter, purchasing his re-election, and buying a compliant City Council, Mayor-for-Life Mike now feels empowered to lecture the nation on the folly of blaming BP for the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.  According to the NY Post, he believes we are being unnecessarily hard on BP and cautions us to avoid a "rush to judgment" in assigning blame. In defending Tony Heyward, he said, "he (Heyward) didn't exactly go down there and blow up the well."  Really??  Most observes agree that  BP's gross safety violations and successful attempts to thwart safety protocols did precisely that. 

This rush to judgment nonsense is a little like saying Morton-Thiokol was just a little overzealous in letting the Challenger go up against the advice of their whole team and every protocol.  I think we now know what happens to O-Rings when they get too cold and no one stops the launch at 30º F.  Well what happened in the Gulf is far worse.

I think it's pretty fair to say that his BP comments have given Howard Wolfson all the indication he needs that Mayor-for-Life Mike might toy with a run for higher office, but their ain't none forthcoming.  Even with a billion dollars, no amount of money Bloomberg can spend for elective office anywhere in the U.S. will overcome a few radio, TV and print ads by an opponent recalling his defense of BP.  

Imagine an Indian politician going on Delhi radio and defending Union Carbide circa 1984.  That would be one career dead Indian politician.  You think Rand Paul and Sharon Angle are outside of the political mainstream?  Neither of them have been so arrogant, cavalier and heartless (remember, there are 11 dead) and politically brain dead as to say, "Let's all be nice to BP during the clean up."   There's no issue of 'benefit of the doubt' as Mayor-for-Life Mike claims.  The only issue outstanding is whether or not BP's negligence was criminal.  Their lying, deception and reckless behavior is in dispute by no one.  Except of course the Mayor of New York City.

First he came to the aid of Goldman Sachs and now BP.  Destroying the US economy (not to mention Greece's) and despoiling our shorelines is not enough to earn the ire of Mike Bloomberg.  Nope.  You gotta do much worse than that.

Can you only imagine what his reaction would be if Lloyd Blankfein or Tony Heyward smoked?  Then they'd be in real trouble!!

 

 

I'm Just Asking

Did you notice the Wall Street Journal's choice of Op-Ed columnists today?  The WSJ must be holding Redemption Wednesdays this summer. 

On one page is Steven Ratner, formerly a partner in Quadrangle Partners and President Obama's Car Czar.  On the other is my old boss Charles Millard, he late of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).

Just a few weeks ago Ratner's former firm - although not him personally - settled with the NYS Attorney General's Office for their involvement in the Hevesi/Morris pension fund scandal.  My guess is that settlement, while not covering Ratner specifically, sufficed for him just the same.  Just days ago, Millard was cleared of illegal procurement practices by the Inspector General at PBGC. 

And now here they both are returning to the public eye courtesy of the WSJ.  Can we expect Eric Massa, Charlie Rangel, and Mark Sanford to be appearing soon?

As Arizona Goes, So Goes NYC 

I've scoured the web this morning trying to find an answer to this question: How is NYC's Campaign Finance Law not as unconstitutional as Arizona's?  It's a little bit of a stretch to use the term 'unconstitutional' at this point, since the U.S. Supreme Court only stayed the state government from issuing anymore checks, but it will have the same effect for the moment.

Arizona compensates candidates who abide by its spending limits with public matching funds.  They further enrich candidates in the program who face non-participating high-spending self funders with a bonus match.  This is precisely NYC's program.  I fully understand that what the Court did only applies right now to Arizona and no one else, but why hasn't Ron Lauder or someone else challenged the legality of NYC's law in the past?  Maybe it's a needless gesture to discuss it since once the state appeals the ruling, the Court will accept briefs and possibly hear arguments in the Fall which will undoubtedly lead to the law being struck down with national repercussions.  And good riddance to a program that wastes millions of dollars every election cycle on virtually unopposed candidates.  As for leveling the field, better candidates with popular appeal will accomplish that.  Look no further than Alvin Greene's victory yesterday  in South Carolina or many of the Tea Party victories all over the country.  More private or public monies didn't achieve those election victories.  A popular appeal to voters - whether that's good long-term or not - is what won the day.  State financed speech is a development to be feared, not welcomed.

Had California a campaign finance program like ours in place, that near bankrupt state would have handed over millions and millions of dollars to Meg Whitman's opponents and I guarantee you would not have changed yesterday's outcome. 

Mayor-for-Life Mike Bloomberg never participated in NYC's Campaign Finance Law, obviously.  But his spending triggered huge bonus payments to his opponents.  I have never heard him forcefully advocate for its repeal.  Instead, amidst what he pretends is a cataclysmic budget season, he cuts school lunches, fires teachers, closes firehouses and throws senior citizens out into the street.  I don't fault him for his spending, obscene as it is.  I fault him for not being honest and consistent and advocating for the law's repeal with the same force that he hijacked the last election through legislation.

Here's hoping that the Court definitively tosses Arizona's law and with it puts an end to the further waste of NYC tax dollars in shoring up a deeply rotten system.

 

The Cynical Device

The question of the moment for voters/citizens of NYC is, how dumb exactly does Mayor-for-Life Mike think you are?  He has empaneled another Charter Revision Commission.  In Bloombergland Charter Revision Commissions exist to settle scores and empower the man - Bloomberg - but not the office.  This commission isn't about bettering the lives of NYers or streamlining government.  We don't have Chris Christie at City Hall.  Mayor-for-Life Mike wants a few things done before he leaves office.  What they are precisely we don't know. But we can guess.

Bloomberg has a pattern of attacking things he doesn't like: guns, cigarettes, automobiles, the Public Advocate (whomever he/she may be), political parties, term limits, constitutional advocates and basically anyone who disagrees with him.

Here's the real danger in this particular Commission's work.  I have no idea what they will recommend or what will be on the ballot.  Presumably, he wants his legacy to be the doing away with of political parties in NYC.  Ordinarily that would stand no chance of voter approval.  But Bloomberg has found a 100% foolproof way to get whatever he wants approved this time by the voters.

NYC voters have twice gone to the polls and approved term limits.  There was really no reason for them to have gone the second time.  They amended the City Charter the first time to limit the terms of City officeholders.   But entrenched pols wanted to keep their jobs and thought they'd have another try at convincing voters their continued service was in the public interest.  They lost.  But then Mayor-for-Life Mike and the NYC Council decided the voter's will was just a suggestion and not in fact an ironclad change of the Charter.  So they passed term extensions legislatively which allowed Bloomberg, Speaker Quinn and the rest of the NYC Council to keep their jobs.  Notwithstanding the complicity of the US Justice Department or court decisions, it was outrageous behavior on their parts and the Bloomberg cliffhanger on election night was the direct result. 

All polls showed then - and show now - that voters have never changed their minds about term limits in NYC - they want them!!  Moreover, term limits are the law of the land in NYC, the Charter was never amended, just hijacked.  So there is no need to place the issue of term limits on the ballot for a third time; there has been no change of law or sentiment - quite the contrary.

But here's the pernicious part.  At Bloomberg's direction, the Commission will place the issue of term limits on the ballot as a part of a whole package of "reforms."  Many of which - particularly non-partisan elections - could never pass on their own.  But voters will be convinced, falsely, that this term limits question is unsettled. 

Rather than phrasing the issue as such,"should NYC repeal term limits," which would receive an overwhelmingly negative response and thereby doom the extraneous proposals attached to it, the issue will be phrased thus, "should the charter be amended to impose....."  This affirmation of voter sentiment will require a 'Yes' vote and carry-in with it all the other "reforms."  Perhaps, the term limit question will need to represent a slight change from current law in order to make it a legal ballot question, but it will be the Clydesdale that will pull along with it all the other things Mayor-for-Life Mike really cares about.

He can't smoke anymore so no one should be allowed to smoke.  He hates guns, so no one should be allowed to own one.  He hates cars, so the city needs to be turned into a giant pedestrian mall (ignoring the obvious point that with his homes around the world he must own literally dozens of personal automobiles).  The Public Advocate and political parties oppose him, so they must be banished.  These are pet peeves not policy.

There is no serious person in this city who believes the Mayor and the City Council had the authority to wipe-out term limits unilaterally.  Placing the matter on the ballot settles neither political nor legal questions.  The whole argument for this in the first place was that we couldn't live without him after the financial crisis.  Could anyone make that claim now with a straight face?

So what will be the rationale?  The fig leaf excuse to be given to explain its inclusion will be the "ambiguity" surrounding the legality of their action.  They all know they had no Charter authority to do what they did, but now they're going to make the voters tell them explicitly to stop doing it.  It's a lot like the serial killer who at the murder scene scrawls on the bathroom mirror, "Stop me before I kill again."  This is what we've been reduced to in NY in place of political leadership.  And why the contorted kabuki theatre to produce this result?  The real purpose is to eliminate political parties from the ballot in municipal elections.

Our Mayor-for-Life loves non-partisan elections for two reasons.  First, since he has no ideology or core political philosophy that guides or shapes his thinking, he loathes it in others.  Secondly, he wants to maximize his billions once he's out of office.  He wants to affect city life for decades to come (Lord knows he can't get elected again legitimately).  The one thing that stands in his way from electing candidates who agree with him are political parties and their closed primaries.  So, therefore, do away with party designated candidates.  Instead of the D or R imprimatur attached to a candidate's name you will have B for Bloomberg.  Whether through a PAC or foundation or his own personal checkbook, we will have a city of officeholders beholden not to the voters but to one man and his personal agenda.  That is some pretty dangerous stuff.  And that is the real work of this Charter Review Commission.

 

 

Earthquake for the GOP

Growing up in my family, election night - any election night - was a very big deal.  Sort of like the Super Bowl, The Final Four and the finals of American Idol, Dancing With the Stars and Survivor rolled into one.  My father often mocked me because I cared as much about elections and primaries in other states as I did about those in NY.  I saw them as having meaning for national trends and voter sentiment as it related to important issues I cared about.  He would often say about me that I, unlike himself, "actually cared about shit," meaning serious policy.

So last night I was pretty excited to sit in front of the TV and see what the nation was thinking.  Yesterday's political results and news did not disappoint.

First, the news.  There are few members of Congress more repellent than Mark Souder.  I have no problem with his Christian conservatism.  In fact, my family was deeply horrified that in my youth I would spend my Sunday mornings in front of the TV watching the Old Time Gospel Hour with Jerry Falwell.  I have no problem that he cheats on his wife; that's his business. 

I have a real problem that he has been the leader in linking young people's drug use with college aid.  Thanks to him, any prior drug conviction, no matter how small, results in a preclusion from any Federal student grants or loans.  The War on Drugs is wasteful and futile enough.  But to deny someone a college education because of something George Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did - but were never caught at or convicted - is pretty outrageous.  I'm not even gonna bring up the unbelievable hypocrisy of the whole abstinence crusade while at the same time he's diddling a staff member.  I'll get to the cowardice of his remarks yesterday in a moment.

My other favorite piece of news yesterday involved the holier than thou Richard Blumenthal.  Embellish about your job history, OK.  Fudge your academic achievements, I can get that.  Actually claim to have been "in the shit" in one of the worst military conflicts in U.S. history when you weren't?  That's pretty unforgivable.  Attorney General Blumenthal has been an unforgiving law and order prosecutor.  No compassion or leniency towards non-violent defendants.  I see no reason why anyone should grant him any now.  Which bring me to the "apology."

What Blumenthal and Souder have in common is there sickening lack of personal integrity while copping to there misdeed.  Souder said the responsibility was his alone, and then blamed the toxic culture in Washington for his having to resign.  As though no honorable man would resign for being such a hypocritical scumbag outside the vacuum of Washington.  Blumenthal in my mind did him one better.  Reading from the modern day mea culpa script, he proudly announced that he took, "full responsibility" for his actions.  Really?  He wants some credit for saying that?  As though without saying that he might be suggesting someone made him lie over and over and over again?  Is he suggesting that his staff might have inserted those words into his speeches over and over again.  Well of course he's fully responsible!  He's the one who lied repeatedly and sought to mislead his audiences.  It's not just his lying by commission, he lied scores of time by omission.

As The New York Times reported yesterday, he received numerous profiles from magazines and newspapers where his having 'served in Vietnam' was prominently mentioned.  He never sought to issue a correction or asked the reporters to; even if the fault was the reporters for assuming it from his statements.  Further, his defense that he lies only some of the time should really remove him from serious contention for the U.S. Senate.  I fear, however, that he is still a sure bet to win the seat.

As for the results, more good news. 

Arlen Spector should have left with thems who brought him.  I think my party is totally out of whack, but I'm still in it.  After thirty years in Congress you make the good fight and live or die by the results.  Yes, Pat Toomey would have creamed him.  But thems the brakes.  At least his defeat would have been honorable.  Instead of self-serving and desperate, which is what it was last night.  In Arkansas we won't know for a few weeks what yesterday meant.  A warning shot or a death knell for Blanche Lincoln?  It's meaning, we'll have to see.

Of course the big news of the evening was to be found in The Bluegrass State.  Rand Paul's victory is a seminal event.  It's one thing for a small corner of Texas to elect a libertarian to Congress (his father, Ron Paul).  It's quite another for a whole state to do that.  That hasn't happened yet - and it's entirely possible that once people fully understand libertarianism, they might not embrace it - but in Kentucky it's pretty hard for a Republican to lose a Senate race these days.  And he didn't just beat the establishment's candidate last night.  He trounced him.

The biggest loser last night as a result of Paul's win was not Barack Obama or the Democratic Party.  What all news analysts missed in his victory is how potentially cataclysmic this is for the Washington Republican establishment.  For the GOP, last night might have been a bigger jolt than Iceland or Katrina. 

John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Rudy Giuliani hate everything Rand Paul stands for.  The Republican Party gave us two wars, TARP, warrantless wiretaps, rendition, torture, massive budget deficits, out-of-control earmarks, a federal takeover of our local educational system (No Child Left Behind), the largest new federal entitlement program in decades (Medicare Part D), and the so-called Wars on Terror & Drugs.  Rand Paul and libertarians like him (including me) oppose every single one of those things.

Where is there any evidence his core issues - which do not include lower taxes in the first instance, by the way - will ever be embraced by the Republican officeholders in D.C.?  The answer is, there is none.  They support every single thing he opposes.  His election will also show Scott Brown to be no friend of the Tea Party movement, if that isn't already apparent.  Whereas Rand Paul isn't going to Washington to make friends, Scott Brown wants to fit into the GOP D.C. club. 

If Rand Paul were to succeed in his goals he would fundamentally reshape the Republican Party and what it has become since the 1970s.   The neo-cons don't want that.  The Club for Growth doesn't want that.  The Wall Street Journal doesn't want that.  Christian conservatives don't want that.  Sarah Palin doesn't want that.  Fox News sure as hell doesn't want that!  But perhaps, just perhaps, most of the American people do want that. 

And that scares the bejesus out of Republican Congressional leaders.  We know the Democratic Party - empty and pandering - opposes everything Rand Paul supports.  But what happens when Republican leaders have to start stating on the record their views on his issues?  And worse, taking votes on Rand Paul sponsored legislation.  That's when the real trouble starts.  Republican members of Congress will have to openly declare war on the Tea Party movement's agenda by their no votes.  Up till now they could blame someone else for why there would be no congressional action on their agenda.  No more.  And that is why his victory in November is very bad news for the status quo, big spending, talk a good game, party of 'No.'

 

 

No Way Out

None of you were alive when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Plessy or Dred Scot.  Only a few of you remember the day they handed down the decision in Korematsu.  But all of you will remember the day they decided U.S. v. Comstock; which now joins those other cases as one of the most shameful Court sanctioned violations of fundamental Constitutional liberties in this country's history.

The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a lower court's decision striking down parts of the Adam Walsh Act.  The lower court found that the U.S. Government did not have the Constitutional authority to prolong a prisoner's sentence after it had been served.  The suit was brought by a group of former inmates who were contesting their continued detention. The Adam Walsh Act empowers the Justice Department - upon recommendation from the Bureau of Prisons - to seek the indefinite incarceration (i.e. civil commitment) of prisoners whose sentence has been served but whom it deems to pose a "danger," should they be released.  This case, and the Act, relates to so-called "sex offenders."  But there is nothing in today's decision that would prevent the Federal Government from applying this same principle to any crime.  Bear in mind that while the blogosphere is filled with posts applauding this decision and ranting about child molesters, three of the five defendants in this case were convicted of child porn possession; they never touched a child.  Further, based on the program rules promulgated by the BOP, there is absolutely no written explanation as to how these interned ex-prisoners can obtain their freedom.  For these men there is simply no way out.  They will be incarcerated forever, since no one has explained to them how they can get out from under the subjective evaluation of their BOP accusers.

You may read much about this decision.  But no where else will you read as authoritative an analysis as you will here.  I was in the same prison and program as those plaintiffs.  I dealt with the same doctors and BOP bureaucracy as they did.  Knowing what I do makes this decision all the scarier.  Because I know that those BOP staff and that bureaucracy are as corrupt as anything you will find in a bad southern jail. 

A little background.  When you are convicted of a Federal so-called sex offense, you are supposed to be sent to a prison that has one of two programs housed within it.  One is a voluntary treatment program, that inmates request to join.  It's called the Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP) and inmates live, are monitored and receive "treatment" in a closed housing environment.  If you do not join, you are automatically sent to a prison with a Sex Offender Management Program (SOMP).  This is an involuntary program that requires inmates adherence to certain program guidelines.  But at the end of the day, you do not have to engage with SOMP staff for treatment should you refuse, as I did (not that they offered any to me). They will however blackmail you into taking assessment tests prior to your release.  Since it's an involuntary program, you cannot be coerced into anything that would violate your 4th Amendment rights.  But you are told you either take the tests or your half-way house time is withheld. 

Numerous courts have told the BOP this is illegal, but the BOP claims it does not withhold time for refusing to take the tests.  I can tell you that one is told flatly that no half-way house time will be given unless you take these 3 days worth of tests.  The BOP engages in this behavior in direct contravention of various court orders.  Moreover, prior to taking the tests you are required to sign an indemnification form.  This form indemnifies the private for-profit company that administers the test and collects the data which it then resells.  Failure to sign the indemnification prevents you from being tested and thereby denies you your half-way house eligibility.  Further, at the request of my prosecutor, the SOMP staff rewrote their final assessment of me after I had left the prison to paint me in a more unfavorable light.  But if you've served time in Federal prison, you know this sort of behavior is commonplace.

The astonishing thing to us in the SOMP program was why anyone would volunteer for the residential SOTP program.  It was a well known fact that the SOTP staff, far from providing any treatment, had as its sole goal to find evidence to have inmates civilly committed.   They weren't interested in helping you, since the BOP believes against all psychiatric evidence, that there is no treatment possible.  Their goal day-in and day-out was, A. to trap you into saying something that could be twisted around on a commitment form; and B. making you feel as worthless as possible.  The idea being that by depriving you of any sense of self worth you would be more docile. 

All - and I mean ALL - psychiatric data suggests that conditioning someone to feel worthless will have the exact opposite effect in nearly every case.  The BOP staff were in effect creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.  They claim that so-called sex offenders (and they lump into that category the broadest possible variety of offenses) cannot be cured and therefore need to be monitored forever - inside prison or out.  By designing a treatment program that denies them any self-worth they ensure that these men will re-offend, as would be true in any category of crime if this were the prescribed course of treatment.  You can be 100% sure that if bank robbers were enrolled in programs - voluntarily or forcibly - that reinforced the notion in the harshest terms that they were worthless, I can guarantee you that upon release the recidivism rate for bank robbers would double or triple over what it is currently. 

Towards the end of my stay at FMC Devens (for a long time the only SOMP program in the country) the BOP moved dozens of inmates from FCI Butner to Devens in order to start a SOTP program.  I was able to observe them and had been friends with a number of them prior to their joining the program.  The defendants in the Comstock case were mostly SOTP participants at FCI Butner in North Carolina (I was at the prison next door - FMC Butner - for 18 months).   The main reason the BOP moved them from North Carolina to Massachusetts was they hoped that after the 4th Circuit in Richmond ruled in the inmates' favor, that by moving them to another jurisdiction, their appeal would be stymied since they no longer had standing in the 4th Circuit.  The timing was very suspicious as they were moved mere weeks after the 4th Circuit handed down its ruling.  Devens wasn't even prepared in any way to accept them and yet they came.

You should also understand that these SOMP and SOTP staff are not doctors, at least not medical doctors or psychiatrists.  In my five years in prison I never met a single sex offender staff member who was a psychiatrist.  They are either civilians with no credentials, Ph.D. candidates or holders of Ph.D.s from a variety of disciplines.  The so-called science behind this sex offender treatment amounts to the same science practiced in Salem for witchcraft or used by the Nazis who labeled racial purity and there methods of detection as true science.  In Nazi Germany whole institutes were established in the scientific belief that racial purity could be divined through things such as hair and eye color, as well as phrenology.  In 1939 Germany this was a science just as certain as physics.  Today that has been replaced by the science of Sex Offender Treatment and instead of calipers to measure the skull, they use plethysmographs to measure penis blood flow to determine your level of risk.  Same false claims, same junk science, same eager perpetrators, different hysteria.

Here is the chilling rationale from today's decision, "The statute is a 'necessary and proper' means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others," said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority .  Can a reasonable person find any end to that logic that would prevent the Government from detaining anyone based on their theoretical potential to inflict harm?

The irony is that in another decision today the Court said you cannot sentence minors to life without parole in non-murder cases.  Their rationale? They said that minors who commit horrible crimes should still receive some hope of parole or a future outside of prison.  It's ironic because in Comstock the BOP provided the Court with no rules or road-map as to how these former inmates could ever achieve freedom after they have been civilly committed.

It is also important to know that this travesty was argued before the Court by Elena Kagan.   Now that this is decided law, I wonder how many Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will be brave enough to challenge her on Comstock and its dreadful implications.

In just the last month, we are openly discussing rewriting Miranda, revoking defendant's citizenship in terror cases, and now civilly committing inmates who have served their time as proscribed by judge and jury. 

It is no surprise to me that the near unanimous majority decision was written by Clinton appointee Stephen Breyer, father of the Federal Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines.   Liberals so often rail against Scalia and Thomas but if you are a true civil libertarian you know the Constitution has no greater friend than Antonin Scalia and often joining him, Clarence Thomas.  Thomas was the lone dissenting vote today (joined partially by Scalia). 

It took great guts to do that in a sex offender matter.  But Thomas said straight out, he could find no authority in the Constitution for the Federal Government to do what it was proposing in Adam Walsh.  That was brave.  And every card carrying member of the ACLU or anyone who treasures true liberty should say a little thank you tonight to Clarence Thomas for being not only gutsy, but highly principled and consistent in his judicial thinking.  The Court doesn't break down as neatly as far-left liberals and right-wing conservatives would have you believe. 

I opposed Elena Kagan's nomination because far from being in the mold of Stevens or Souter, she will be a Breyer, and that, to any lover of the Constitution, is far worse than any Scalia or Thomas.  Make no mistake she would have voted in the majority today in Comstock.  There's been all this talk about her being a leader on the left or a consensus builder.  She is neither.  She is a moderate through and through.  She will emerge as the bitter disappointment that Breyer already has to those of us who care about protecting instead of eroding defendant's rights. 

 

Is This What They Mean By Liberty?

Congress once again is up to its old big government tricks.  Tucked away in legislation making its way to final passage are two of the most egregious intrusions by the Federal Government into the private lives of American citizens.

In the banking bill is a provision that every single financial transaction must be reported to two newly created entities, the Office of Financial Research (OFR) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.   Orwellian, right?   Sounds like they would be something positive or merely benign.  All of this data mining and collection is being done, sponsors say, to determine the financial stability of institutions.  Included, but not limited to, in their future requests would be: all banking transactions; all credit card transactions; and all market/trading transactions.  The Director of the OFR would have unlimited subpoena power to compel any institution to produce anything he requested.  No court, no judge to check this authority; just total, unbridled federal power.  We provide suspected terrorists with more checks against abuse than is being proposed here for every American citizen.

It is simply amazing to me that with this Tea Party movement - supposedly making an impact and talking non-stop about 'liberty' - that something like this is going-on unnoticed.

The second major intrusion, also for seemingly innocuous purpose, is a proposed rule that all new cars have very sophisticated black boxes installed at the time of manufacture.  The suggested rationale has to do with Toyota and all this unintended acceleration.  It would make it easier to verify and document customer complaints and have more verifiable and accurate data to follow-up on those complaints.  Again, that might sound rather harmless and useful, but here's the reality.  Data collected from those black boxes would be used by NTSA perhaps a handful of times a year.  The real use for that data is by insurance companies.  Right now, whether you know it or not, your car already has a box black, if manufactured after a certain year.  They collect some rudimentary data that is used regularly by insurance companies - even at your objection - in order to prove driver negligence in tort litigation. 

The new boxes would collect loads more information on driving patterns and habits.  Insurance companies will know everything about you.  Nothing would stop them from asking to look at the box before providing you with a policy, for anything.  Insurance for health, life, auto, homeowners, anything.  Think of the conclusions one could draw based on your driving habits and patterns.  And it would be illegal to disconnect this box.  You bought the car, you think you own it, but no.  Now the government has a little friend sitting next to you any time you get behind the wheel.  And can you imagine the extent to which law enforcement will make use of this info?  There will be cases in the courts for years over the objectionable use of this personal information. 

Why am I a disillusioned Republican?  Because legislation like this is precisely why the Republican Party exists.  To oppose it!  And yet, not a word.  This is the kind of thing that filibusters are designed for.  This is exactly why, supposedly, there is this fledgling Tea Party movement and this near unanimous distrust and distaste for the Federal Government. And yet, time and time again we see Congress put forth such anti-libertarian, fascistic proposals. 

Think all this talk from the left and the right about watching out for your interests is real?  Think Congress wants to get tough with big banks?  All you have to do is look at yesterday's vote on capping the size of banks.   61-33 was the final vote to kill that essential reform; 27 Democrats voted against it.  Without it, nothing else they do will matter in terms of financial reform.  Democrats killed it.  Republicans killed it.  And to be sure, the Obama Administration killed it.  As a columnist in The Wall Street Journal made clear this morning, all that Wall Street cash, coming into Democratic incumbents' coffers, insures that whatever bill is finally produced, Wall Street won't be displeased. 

Ponder this statistic (from Barclays Capital): Currently, 12 banks control over 50% of the nation's deposits.  In 2003, it took 25 banks and in 1998 it took 42 banks to achieve that stat.  This consolidation of the nation's wealth into a few untrustworthy hands cannot be a good thing for our country, even if you are a free marketeer. 

Federal power, perpetuating corporate greed, industrial welfare; these are the concerns of your national legislature.  I don't really think voting out incumbents is the answer.  Most of the challengers in this year's election in short time would cast these same votes or blind themselves to the impact their actions have on you, your family and your daily lives. 

Who is Congress working for?  It would seem the answer is itself, the giant financial institutions that nearly brought us to economic ruin, insurance companies and law enforcement.  There is no evidence, whatever, that Congress is working on behalf of the vast, vast majority of us.  The question is, will voting out all of them make a difference or is there another option?  I don't know, but at this point I am discouraged and open to suggestions.

 

The Rise of the Machines

In one sense, yesterday's wild ride on Wall Street is easy enough to understand.  The machines beat back the humans.  You do not need to watch a Matrix, Transformers or Terminator franchise film to see machines defeat humanity.  You only need to trade stocks.  Apparently, the future is now.

For centuries, futurists and science fictions writers have imagined what life would be like in the age of the machines.  Invariably they got the details wrong, but almost always the implications were spot on. 

To understand what happened yesterday, the NYSE  - and its computer driven trading models - has become like a giant poorly designed dam.  In a properly designed dam, the water rushes in against the concrete barriers.  The water is then diverted to tunnels which sends the water either forward to the concrete and penstocks for power generation or it is just released slowly, perhaps for irrigation.  The point being, there is a plan for where it goes and what is done with it. 

At the NYSE, trades come in at moments of calamity and - as we learned yesterday, no one has the faintest idea what happens to them.  Put simply (and that's the only way I could understand it), for some reason (that has yet to be understood) Proctor & Gamble's stock began dropping precipitously for no valid reason.  The NYSE stopped trading in that stock for 90 seconds in order to assess.  And that's when the machines took over.

Unlike in the old days, when a stock was traded only on the exchange where it was listed, now a stock can be traded in dozens of places around the world.  Closing the spigot at the NYSE did nothing in terms of stopping the fall in P&G.  When that 90 second halt in trading occurred the computers did two things: 1) they started selling and as trades came in for P&G they rerouted them (like breaching the dam) to other exchanges to affect the trade.  That caused the plunge in P&G to continue and increase.  Whereupon, 2) the market as a whole - the computers - started selling wildly.  The NYSE, unbelievably, hadn't realized that might be an inevitable consequence of such a halt in trading. 

And now the NYSE says that for the 90 minute span that the market went crazy yesterday they are going to reverse many of the trades that fell within a certain percentage swing.  How unfair is that?  What if you meant to sell?  What if you saw a particular stock going down and you wanted out?  No go, apparently.  Now you're stuck with a stock that is possibly 15-20% lower than what you thought you sold it at.  That's the problem with all the machines running things. This is really about greed, once again, and nothing else. 

In order to have daily trading volume in the billions instead of the millions you need computers, not traders and specialists on the floors.  This allows the investment banks and brokerage companies to reach clients they never could before and at commissions that make it affordable to anyone.  This generates zillions for them.  Is that good?  It's good for them, that's for sure.  Having the whole country invested in the stock market like in the late 1920's may not be such a good idea for us or the economy as a whole.  But those are questions for Stiglitz, Krugman, or Greenspan; it's a little over my head.  What I do know is that the machines won yesterday and we should all be a little spooked about that going forward.

A Kind Word About David Paterson

As the great Kitty Kallen used to say, "Little things mean a lot."  In this modern age we don't give much thought to the license plates we attach to our cars.  When I was a boy it was still a big deal to see a plate from California or Nevada.  Moreover, states left license plates unchanged for decades.  A state's plate design could and would easily become iconic.  Why do we all know New Hampshire's state motto, "Live Free or Die?"  We know it from its license plate.  These days you can choose from a variety of plates with various causes, designs and quotes.  But back in the day we all had to have the same plate.  Its design, not only representative of our state, was also to a large degree, representative of our culture.  A license plate wasn't merely reflective in its appearance, it reflected how we as a state saw ourselves.

Well, a little more than 20 years ago, Mario Cuomo decided that our state's license plate - iconic and unchanged for decades - should be redesigned.  New York had had forever the famous orange and blue license plate.  Back then it just said 'New York,' no other words (Cuomo would add The Empire State).  People around the world could pick out that design as New York's plate.  It was strong, bold and simple - no fuss.  Kinda how we in NYS see ourselves.  It united upstate and downstate.  Live in the city or the sticks, but you had that orange and blue plate in common. 

What the Cuomo Administration produced in its place was God awful.   During those Cuomo years it was truly embarrassing to have a car with a NYS license plate on it.   It very quickly became the ugliest license plate in America.  Ironic, since by the time of his final, failed re-election bid in 1994, the only positive thing Mario Cuomo himself could say about his record was that he had revamped the rest stops along the NYS Thruway. 

When George Pataki took office in 1995, one of the first acts of his Administration was to get rid of that Cuomo license plate.  We were all grateful.  What he gave us instead was bland and lifeless.  Inoffensive to be sure, but not representative of the great state.  And so, with some minor tweaking, it has remained since then.

Now all of a sudden, without any warning, David Patterson has given us back our icon.  His original plan was to raise hundreds of millions of dollars quickly by requiring all NYS car owners to turn in their existing license plates for the new ones and pay a $40 fee in the process.  Twelve million cars and trucks multiplied by $40 and you can see that's a few shekels to close the budget gap.   But that plan was withdrawn.  Now all new plates issued will be the orange and blue.  In a few years time, that's all you will see on the road.

So on behalf of all car owning New Yorkers, I want to thank David Paterson.  He hasn't done much.  He won't be remembered by generations.  But he has given us back our plates and for that we'll remember him fondly.

 

 

Newsweek

Will I miss Newsweek, now that it being sold (or given away, more likely)?  Not really.  I'll miss George Will and David Ansen.  But to me Newsweek stopped being relevant or interesting when it became the Fareed Zakaria newsletter.  Whole issues seemingly were devoted to his thoughts on everything ranging from Iraq to Katrina.  I never found him particularly interesting or insightful, so this reliance on his viewpoint was always lost on me.  What market segment was he aimed at?  Was The Post trying to capture the moderate Muslim segment of U.S. readers?  I guess they succeeded.

Newsweek is an institution.  So from that standpoint it will be missed.  It was, in its time (no pun intended), a worthy competitor and sometimes leader in the weekly news magazine wars.  But now that The Washington Post Company has basically stopped being about news gathering and more about Stanley Kaplan, the inevitable realization set-in that dumb high school kids will always be a better bet for profits than educated adults.  I hope some deep-pocketed Murdoch or Zuckerman type - willing to sustain the losses - scoops it up and makes it a worthy read once more.


 

Right Man, Wrong Job

In the early weeks of the Giuliani Administration, Rudy commanded that all his commissioners and top staff attend a day-long session at Gracie Mansion.  The idea was to hear speakers who would discuss innovations in government, new ideas and new ways to deliver services.  It took place on a Saturday as not to interfere with weekday business.

One reason I was so excited about a Giuliani Mayoralty was Rudy's enthusiasm for new ideas.  Republican ideas, Democratic ideas, it didn't matter.  Where in the U.S. were the innovations coming from and who was in the vanguard of change?  That's what he wanted to find out.  No city of any size - and especially New York City - had embarked on such a wholesale blank slate in terms of how it looked at doing its job.  

Back in 94 Ed Rendell, the Mayor of Philadelphia, was considered a change agent and had introduced new service delivery methods in his city.  Randy Mastro was old friends with his Chief of Staff and asked me to arrange Rendell's schedule.  I was really impressed that for a Mayor of a big city he traveled alone.  He drove himself down from Philly to NYC.  I arranged with the NYPD to have a police escort meet him at the NY-Penn border and escort him to Gracie for his talk.  Also that day, I believe, James Wilson or George Kelling, appeared as the authors of the 'Broken Windows' theory; the guiding philosophy behind Rudy's policing strategy. 

But the main inspiration for change on the municipal level - and someone the administration had been in touch with going back to the campaign - was the Mayor of Indianapolis, Steve Goldsmith.  Goldsmith had become a true innovator in terms of forcing entrenched municipal unions to compete for existing city services with the private sector.  The results in Indianapolis demonstrated that in those instances where the unions won the bid, they were able to lower costs and increase productivity.   It was proof Rudy needed to try that experiment in union laden NYC.

Richard Schwartz, Senior Advisor to the Mayor, was the man at City Hall responsible for developing the policies, implementing them and riding herd on deeply recalcitrant commissioners and agencies.  Schwartz was in regular touch with Mayor Goldsmith as the Indianapolis experiment proceeded.  I met Steve Goldsmith a few times back then and found him to be bright, energetic and non-doctrinaire.  What he was not, was fluent in managing agencies or a city the size of New York City.  He was a fine, forward thinking Midwestern Mayor.  But running New York City to a Midwestern Mayor would be like being made Mayor of Baghdad; simply beyond their ken or life experience.

So while I applaud Mayor-for-Life Bloomberg for bringing Steve Goldsmith to NYC, I cannot help but be disappointed once again in how the Mayor demonstrates daily how much he disdains actual reform.  Notwithstanding the wholesale capitulation by the Bloomberg cheering NY press corps, and his relatively decent poll numbers, the Mayor has never been a change agent.  Reform, real structural reform, scares the hell out of him.  I don't know why but in his eight years in office he has made zero effort at reforming anything.  His appointment of Steve Goldsmith as de facto First Deputy Mayor - charged with day-to-day running of the line agencies, is misguided and reflective of the fact that even when he has a good impulse it dies of loneliness.  The job for Goldsmith was the old Schwartz job.  Let the former Mayor have an office (not a desk in the idiotic bullpen) in City Hall where he can examine, ruminate and investigate City services and practices.  Give him a free hand to go into every sector of City Government and find the waste, abuse and centuries old worst practices that I know exist. You cannot do that and run the City at the same time.  Peter Powers couldn't do it as a lifelong New Yorker and surely Steve Goldsmith won't be able to as a recent emigre.  With that job it's one or the other.

But Bloomberg specifically does not want him doing that.  For eight long years Bloomberg has had a hands-off approach to his own agencies.  He appoints the Commissioner and then leaves them alone.  No edict for reform or overhaul has even been forthcoming.  The best job on earth is that of a Bloomberg commissioner because no one will ask anything of you.  If you're a top notch administrator - John Doherty (DOS), Emily Lloyd (DEP) - then it's a great opportunity and the city in turn is fortunate.  If you're a dud (the list is too long) then we're all the worse off because unless your tenure is scandalous - Lancaster (DOB) or Scarpetta (FDNY) - no one will ever say a word regarding your tepid performance.  

For eight years Bloomberg has given the City unions every possible concession they've requested.  We will be in hock for many decades because of his repeated pension giveaways alone.  So he's made it clear he wants no reform in how we do business, with two exceptions.  He hates cars (although he owns a fleet), so he wants his DOT Commissioner to return NYC to the 18th Century.  He hates smoking - because he can't partake anymore - and orders his DOH Commissioners to spend millions on anti-smoking campaigns that have created the largest black market for bootleg cigarettes in the United States, possibly the World.  And, of course, the attendant crime increase that would naturally come from that policy.  Further, he hates fat people (no svelte size 32 waist he, btw) and commands said DOH Comm. to uselessly ban cooking oils and sugary drinks that only 4 years ago he declared were going to save his budget and the schoolchildren of NYC (the drinks, not the oils).  Now he wants to forcibly ban salt, although he disgustingly ladens it on pizza like its red pepper flakes.  If you ask me, it's a lot like having Marie Antoinette as your Mayor.

I welcome Steve Goldsmith to the Big Apple.  I am just saddened that he is in the wrong job.  The job he's getting he is not equipped to handle and the job he should have been given, Bloomberg wants no part of.  Assuming he's not lying yet again, this is going to be a long 3 1/2 years.

 

No More Sotomayors

As Barack Obama prepares to winnow down his list to a small handful, it's important to stop and realize just how crucial a Supreme Court appointment this will be.  Each new opening is met by claims that "this is the most important one in a generation."  But in the  case of the Stevens seat, it's true. 

My fear, as realized by the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor, is that rather than doing something inspired, something brave, Obama will play it safe.  A safe appointment for the Department of Interior or Energy is not going to effect many peoples actual day-to-day lives.  A moderate, uninspired choice to replace John Paul Stevens will effect nearly everyone in this country and beyond.  

We have a 5-4 court that with the arrival of Alito - coupled with the departures of O'Connor and Souter - will have fewer and fewer 5-4 decisions where the liberals will be writing the majority opinion.  Sotomayor was a fine Appeals Court judge.  She is a lackluster and ideologically middle of the road candidate/Justice for the Supreme Court.  When he nominated her he had a 60% approval rating.  That political capital and good will (not to mention 60 Senate seats) would have allowed him to pick a legal thinker of extraordinary caliber.  Instead, he fell into the same trap - needlessly, that time - which Bill Clinton did.  To get their nominees confirmed, Democratic presidents find the most liberal nominee who Orrin Hatch can support or at least not vociferously oppose.  But with the Souter seat, there was no filibuster possible.  Obama still had his pre-healthcare numbers and sheen.  His one moment to put a Douglas, Brennan or Brandies on the Court, and he let it pass. 

This time, with his numbers sinking and the nation in a foul temper, he will respond with bland and safe.  He should swing to the rafters and nominate someone truly great.  Republicans nominate extremists like Alito.  Samuel Alito is by no means mainstream; every Republicans favorite word during the confirmation process.  He should nominate the left's equivalent of Samuel Alito.  Republicans get to nominate so-called conservatives and Democrats are only allowed to nominate moderates.  Stephen Breyer.  The man behind mandatory prison sentencing guidelines and he's supposed to be the left's answer to Alito, Roberts or Thomas?   How in the world did we come to that?

I am so sick and tired of these appellate court judges for the Supreme Court.  Moreover, everyone chosen it seems has to have been a former prosecutor.  And these names being floated!  Elaine Kagan argues passionately on behalf of the most horrific Bush era/anti-civil liberties laws.  It's sickening the things she has argued in defense of.  How could anyone on the left support her nomination?  Jennifer Granholm.  Seriously?  And Janet Napolitano?  Secretary of the fascistic sounding Department of Homeland Security.  Liberal foil for Scalia?  It's a joke, right?  Her record in this job makes Michael Brown look like Jack Welch incarnate (I know he's not dead). One of the latest names to emerge is Ann Claire Williams.  Black, woman, former federal prosecutor and an appeals court judge, FROM CHICAGO!   Has he touched every possible base on this one?

Let's get rid of the staus quo.  Let's be bold, daring and appoint someone as inspiring as the ideal of the Supreme Court itself.  I worked one block from the Court and went twice to hear arguments there (Senate staff got reserved seating back then).  It gave me chills every time I passed that building or went inside.  It truly is the great equalizer in this democracy. 

My candidate for this seat is the same as it was for Souter's.  He can knock one out of the park by nominating Kathleen Sullivan, former Dean of the Standford Law School.  A more serious, nuanced, and thoughtful legal mind on the left cannot be found.  She can go head to head with anyone on that Court from day one.  And when I advocated her appointment last year I didn't even know then she was gay.  I've only discovered that recently.  It makes it a much more interesting choice and confirmation.

Here is my money-back guarantee.  Fifty or one hundred years from now, no one is going to remember Sonia Sotomayor or the dullard he most likely picks to replace Stevens.  Is that really the legacy he wants?   Does Barack Obama really want a Stephen Breyer mediocre pick to be what he's remembered for judicially, when he has been given a second opportunity to opt for greatness?  I think I know the answer, but we'll see.

 

 

Monetizing Nothing

The benefit of being 46 years old and having lived through the three worst stock market crashes since the Great Depression, is that (a) these panics no longer scare me when they occur; and (b) the current behavior by the Wall Street titans is interesting to analyze and compare with past reactions to extreme market volatility. 

I mention this because Goldman's woes and the SEC case against them takes me back to the 80's and Drexel Lambert.  When cover story after cover story began to lambaste the use of junk bonds - and Drexel's lead role in creating them - Drexel launched a series of TV and print ads aimed at refuting the argument that they - Drexel & junk - produced nothing.  Nothing, that is, but profits for Drexel and vulture greenmailers, it was said.  One ad in particular stuck with me.  It was for Kindercare; then a national chain of day care centers, now 'learning centers.'

The ad - complete with teachers, sandboxes and classrooms - said very simply that without Drexel's high yield bonds (junk) they would not have been able to obtain the financing for their company, its expansion and all the good they were doing for kids.  Notwithstanding Drexel's fate, from a marketing and PR perspective, I thought it was a very effective ad because it explained, at a base level, what purpose junk bonds served and what they could produce.  Love them or hate them, but that junk could actually produce some real bricks and mortar not just profits from over-leveraged acquisitions. It put a face for the public to an otherwise esoteric financial instrument.

The problem for Goldman Sachs - and our financial system in general - is that there is absolutely no way of explaining to anyone the societal or economic benefit of these synthetic Collateral Debt Obligations (the Paulson trade).  When asked yesterday by CNBC and CNN what purpose they served, Goldman CEO Blankfein could only say that they allowed interested parties to seek out appropriate vehicles for their level of risk, both long and short. In essence, these synthetic CDOs or derivatives of derivatives of derivatives, serve no purpose other than creating artificial bets against made-up risk. 

That is Goldman's problem in all this.  There is no Kindercare or any brick and mortar behind any of these synthetic CDOs.  There is no face that a PR company can attach to these financial products.  That is unheard of in the financial marketplace and that is why we stood on an economic precipice in 2008.  Wall Street had become too good at monetizing nothing. And that monetization of nothing didn't benefit companies or even greedy greenmailing individuals, like in the 80's.  No, they only benefited Citi, Bear, Lehman, Goldman, et al.  That is until the housing bubble burst and the transparency of nothing became toxic.

What yesterday demonstrated vividly is that regulatory reform legislation is needed more than ever.  Goldman Sachs said for all the world to hear that their clients interests are never paramount to their own.  Those clients are largely not John and Jane Doe from Omaha but rather huge pension systems, corporations, trusts and banks. The venomous ink that oozes out from 85 Broad Street threatens to poison us all. 

In the old days, investment banks held positions on both sides of a trade to guarantee neutrality. Today, Goldman aggressively sells you "shitty" assets while privately betting that they'll fail.  The marketplace cannot function at this level of sophistication with players behaving in this manner.  If we were in China, after their plundering work on Greek debt, Mexican & Argentinian debt and their windfall off of AIG's collapse, the senior execs at Goldman would be put up against a wall and shot.  But this is America. Here we legislate reform and yesterday, for all the Sturm und Drang we witnessed, it became clearer than ever that something needs to be done to stop the Vampire Squid from killing us all.

 

 

Congressional Jousting with the Vampire Squid

Having worked in the U.S. Senate for over 2 years, I sat through more committee hearings than I care to count.  You do learn a few things watching Senators question and grill witnesses over and over again.  If you're a regular C-Span viewer you'd learn these same rules.  The number one rule, above all others, is that no matter how stupid or ill informed the Senator is, you treat his/her question as though it's imbued with the wisdom of Solomon.  How many times did I see 85 year old Strom Thurmond reading his staff-prepared questions only to be oblivious to the fact that his witness had gone astray and Thurmond's prepared follow-up had nothing whatever to do with the witness's actual response.  It was to wince.  But no one acknowledged it, no matter how bad it got.

I've seen difficult witnesses, combative witnesses, deceptive witnesses and really stupid ones as well.  But never have I seen the slickness and arrogance that was on display in the Senate Hearing Room today.  I swear to God, there must be something they serve in the executive dining room at Goldman Sachs that breeds this level of hubris, arrogance and contempt. 

The Senators for their part didn't acquit themselves much better.  Granted, Sen. McCaskill is unquestionably an idiot.  Only in a Midwestern state like Missouri could she have become the State Auditor with financial skills as poorly honed as these.  Where she tried to sound 'with-it' and 'in the know,' she came off as lame and out-of-touch.  Where she tried to exert populist anger on behalf of her constituents, she came off looking like a rube.  Also, we now have to ask after listening to her: does she have a gambling problem?  But, nonetheless, the rules say you have to sit there and marvel at her command of financial minutiae.  You have to take your beating.

Not the folks from Goldman Sachs, however.  Never in all my years have I seen a witness as arrogant and contemptuous as Josh Birnbaum.  Wow, what an asshole he is.  But I'll give these guys credit.  Their attorneys prepared them extremely well.  As Sen. Collins noticed quickly, all the witnesses had been instructed to try to run out the clock in how they answered the questions.  Their attorneys had instructed them well in witness behavior.  Rule 1 - never, ever answer a question relating to a document without having said document placed in front of you and relevant section identified; accept no quote or referenced comment as fact; never give the questioner the benefit of the doubt (and in fact the Senators were terribly prepared by their staffs and constantly referred to the wrong documents).  Rule 2 - act dumb.  Have the question repeated back numerous times, feigning ignorance over the nuanced use of phrases or the definition of certain common words or routinely used industry terms.  Their plan was to fake cluelessness and if that didn't work, be brusque.

Ironically, the witness most observers anticipated being arrogant, was actually the best witness on the panel.  Fabrice Tourre (no accent on the E apparently), the "Fabulous Fab", was polite, respectful, humble, and relatively - at least for the Goldman crowd - responsive.   The Wall Street Journal commended him today for his unintentional frankness as displayed by his private e-mails.  He was absolutely sure that all these derivatives were a house of cards and was honest enough to admit it.  He, more than anyone, did himself some good today.

I don't think Carl Levin acquitted himself very well.  And I am not referring to the obscenities, something we never heard publicly when I worked there.  For all his CPA-like knowledge of Goldman's books, his bullying didn't add to his case. I thought, as usual, that Tom Coburn was the fairest and most rational Senator up there.  Goldman Sachs, through no benefit of their conduct today, probably came-out unscathed and ended the day in slightly better shape legally then when it started. 

The issues are far too complex for the average person - or even most Senators - to understand, as they were laid out today.  Sen. Levin tried to land some heavy blows but they fell flat because the substance was too esoteric for most to grasp.  The charges contained in the SEC complaint are not difficult to understand and I believe will stand up in court.  As usual, Senators, in an attempt to grandstand, took a relatively simple matter and muddled it up.

As for financial regulatory reform, that was helped a lot today.  The tricks and tactics, not to mention Birnbaum's behavior, employed by Goldman Sachs only helps to reinforce the public's notion that Wall Street holds Main Street in utter contempt.  Yes, at 85 Broad Street they are popping champagne and slapping backs this evening at how they 'stuck it' to the the Senate today.  In typical Goldman fashion, however, a selfish short-term Goldman victory will prove to be a significant long-term Wall Street defeat.

 

SB 1077

What to make of Arizona's new illegal immigration measure?  As you know I am a strict 10th Amendment advocate and believe that states have all powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the Federal Government.  I'll agree on it's face what's going on in Arizona might be a confusing matter.  Is this a border issue? Federal.  Or is this a crime issue? State.  I have great sympathy for Arizona and the predicament their legislature, governor and citizens find themselves in.  Because of the insane drug policies in this country parts of Texas and Arizona have become the Wild West.  The Federal Government has ignored the border problem by investing, uselessly, in Buck Rogers virtual border control.  In the process, wasting over a billion dollars, 10 years and achieving almost no positive result.  For that amount of money a real fence could have been erected and the remainder spent on agents.  But a fence - or some physical equivalent - makes liberals squeamish.  It recalls East Germany, albeit their intent in the erection of their wall was for the exact opposite purpose.

Now with that said, I cannot support this law as enacted.  I know almost nothing about Gov. Jan Brewer.  I will tell you, however, that she gave one of the most intelligent, cogent and thoughtful bill signing speeches I have ever heard.  She clearly has top notch speechwriters there in Phoenix.  It was only when she took questions that she revealed why this law won't work.  In fact it can't and still remain comply Constitutionally.  Frustrated at the reporters asking how police would ID an illegal alien for questioning, she said, "We need to trust in law enforcement."

Up until 40 years ago, the one thing we assuredly did not do in this country was trust in law enforcement to protect our civil liberties.  But starting with the '68' election and the law & order platform of Richard Nixon, a backlash occurred over excessive defendants rights and the need for 'balance.'  Courts and Congress started to give the police more and more discretion and leeway in the exercise of their duties and citizens lost more and more essential liberties.  Police corruption and brutality - always bad - only got worse.  Except now we forgive them in the name of balance.  Cops used to be civil servants who performed a tough job and commanded - or should have - respect.  Now cops are held - and hold themselves -  as some sort of virtual deities.  Look a cop in the eye, look at him the wrong way, talk back, and you'll be arrested on a trumped up charge.  Look at NYC and the trial of this cop who pushed a bicyclist.  Had there not been a camera filming the whole thing his perjured account of the incident would have been the truth.  He lied repeatedly as to the provocation and the result.  

Worse yet, in the age of terror, all cops now believe themselves to be Jack Bauer.  Whether NYC, LA or Des Moines, all cops now see themselves as the front line protection against terrorists.  Listen to Fox News.  All cops are heroes and all defendants scum who would challenge their authority.  The balance we need in this country is restoring our natural and historic suspicion of authority, whether political or law enforcement.

The question in Arizona is what does a "reasonable suspicion to suspect that someone lacks identification," look like?  I don't know.  In fact, no one knows, that's why you have to trust law enforcement.  Well I don't and neither should you. 

The head scratcher for me as a New Yorker, is how is this Arizona law in any way different than the 'Stop & Frisk' policy of the New York City Police Department.  Last year almost 600,000 mostly black and Latino New Yorkers were stopped and subjected to a search for no reason.  Merely because they were black and Latino and living in a high crime neighborhood or worse walking in a white neighborhood. 

Our Mayor for Life and his Police Commissioner claim some rationale for each and every stop, but it's ludicrous.  Minority elected officials, civil rights groups and the usual black panderers like Sharption say nary a word about this.  It is the most far reaching and egregious systemic civil rights abuse in the nation and no one says a word.  Even the black opposing candidate in last year's mayoral election basically supported the policy. Imagine a young black man being told to get up against a wall for a frisk and exercising his constitutional right to tell the cop to "Fuck Off."  He'd be arrested.  And for what cause?  None.  Merely because he was young and black.  How is that any better - if not horrifically worse - than what has been enacted in Arizona?  I don't see it.  Imagine if a year from this August (when SB 1070 takes effect) if stats reveal that cops questioned 600,000 Latinos using SB 1070 as the underlying basis.  The country would go nuts.  Where's all this national outrage about 'Stop & Frisk' that exists over SB 1070?  I don't know. 

It is clearly the Federal Government's responsibility to close and control the border between Arizona and Mexico.  It refuses to do the job.  And because of its drug policies, makes the problem worse each and every day.  I sympathize sincerely with Gov. Brewer and the citizens of Arizona in their disgust of the Federal Government and its abrogation of its constitutional mandate.  But unfortunately, this measure simply isn't the answer, won't stand up to challenge and sadly, it shouldn't.

 

Let 'Em Crash

During the time of the financial crisis in 2007 & 2008, I was repeatedly reminded of a line from one of my favorite movies, Airplane.  If you'll recall, the plane is headed for disaster and the action switches to news accounts from around the world on the crisis.  It culminates with a spoof of the 60 Minutes: Point/Counterpoint segment featuring James Kilpatrick and Shana Alexander.  For those of you too young to remember the pre-Andy Rooney days, Kilpatrick was the conservative and Alexander the liberal.  Further, James Kilpatrick was known for being disagreeable and curmudgeonly. 

In the film, the Kilpatrick stand-in is presumably responding to Shana's argument for assistance or compassion for the doomed passengers.  He says, however, "Shana, they bought their tickets.  They knew what they were getting into.  I say, let em crash."

To me that was always hysterically funny because on the one hand it's so outlandishly callous.  But on the other, he's kinda right.  Air travel is inherently dangerous.  Why should this metal tube weighing thousands of tons stay airborne?  It defies common sense even if it doesn't the laws of physics.  It's an extremely laissez-faire view of travel.

When Paulson and Bernanke were scaring the bejesus out of everyone in 2007 with their predictions of imminent worldwide financial disaster, my attitude then was let em crash.  It was not the role of government to save AIG, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and especially Goldman Sachs regardless of the consequences.  What is the free market if their is no cost for failure?  Lehman went under and the sun still shone the next day.  It would have had Bear, Morgan Stanley, AIG and Goldman folded as well.  But no.  The Friends of Goldman Sachs intervened to make sure the cost of failure was enrichment.  The investment houses changed their status to bank holding companies and the billions flowed freely from the Fed's discount window.  Not only was failure and gross incompetence not punished, it was rewarded lavishly.  At every possible stage Congress, at it does so often these days, abrogated it's basic authorities to the Executive and asked no questions.  Hank Paulson broke his word again and again as to how he would use TARP funds.  And like the Iraqi War Resolution that Congress has never rescinded, the blank check Hank Paulson received and bequeathed to Tim Geithner has never been amended or canceled.

Which brings me to today and the legislation being pushed by President Obama and the Democrats to address systemic flaws in the financial markets.  What's my take on this bill?  It's garbage.  It's worse than the status quo.  Why?  Because it gives false comfort to  Americans who are furious at these bailouts and want absolute assurance that they will never happen again.  Better to live with the possible threat of financial collapse and remain vigilant than to be lulled into this phony sense of security.  This bill is like the homeowner who knowingly installs defective smoke detectors in his home.  Eventually seeing them day in and day out will provide just enough comfort to provide a false sense of safety.  Better to have none and be on the look out for grease fires.

I have been absolutely amazed after watching the news and Sunday talk shows for weeks that no journalist has asked the simplest and most fundamental question regarding this bill and the Republicans criticism of it.  I've seen every player in this debate interviewed: Geithner, Bernanke, Emanuel, Dodd, Frank etc., and no one has asked them this; If today, or in the future, we were back in that House conference room and the Sec. of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve were guaranteeing you that if you did not hand them a blank check to seize companies and calm the markets, the financial system would collapse tomorrow, would this legislation do anything to prevent you from 'writing that check?'   We all know the answer.  The answer is NO.  Nothing in this legislation would prevent another weekend bailout of Bear or AIG.  And the American people know that and that is why they are furious.  This is all bullshit window dressing with talk of more regulators and consumer watchdogs.  Regulators are only as effective as the administration that's appointing them.  If, instead of a tough Obama appointee, we elected another Bush/Cheney type ticket, what would stop them or their regulators from being extraordinarily lax and disinterested in enforcement.  The answer?  Nothing.  The same SEC that ignored Madoff, Sanford, and on and on would do it again.  The same Democrats (Summers, Rubin and Geithner) who bullied and threatened Brooksley Born to back down from promulgating derivatives rules could easily do it again.  In fact, they're still running the show.  We don't trust in men in this country, we trust in laws.  Or at least we used to. 

What the American people want to see is the Chinese wall of Glass-Stegall put back up.  They want either legislation or a constitutional amendment to prevent any more bailouts.  And they want caps on the size of these too big to fail institutions.  Personally, I would outlaw any and all derivatives.  They simply serve no useful, fundamental economic purpose.  Other than perhaps for farmers or airlines hedging fuel prices.

Does this legislation do any of those things?  Nope.  If another Bush administration were to take office tomorrow, would anything in this legislation compel them to monitor Wall Street?  Nope.   It provides certain tools, but they're only as potent as the administration in power and who it chooses to appoint to those posts.  

This is flawed legislation and Obama should not be supporting it.  It reeks of Wall Street political contributions that have watered down its effects.  Barack Obama, who was so deft at sensing and capturing the mood of the country in 08, simply doesn't get that this is not business as usual when it comes to market reform.  People are very angry and simple tinkering - which is all this bill does - will not suffice in this climate.  Mitch McConnell is right, albeit for the wrong reasons.  He wants to curry favor with Wall Street money for the 2010 election.  He think the bill is too tough, although he mouths the opposite.  But I agree that this would be worse than nothing.  Let us have a referendum in November on both parties as to their milquetoast treatment of these financial vultures.  Because until we say - like the ersatz James Kilpatrick in the movie - Let Em Crash, companies like Goldman Sachs will keep sucking our blood and draining our economic marrow.  Only a silver bullet or sharpened stake can slay Goldman Sachs.  So far the Democrats have only produced spit balls.  And trust me they are not cowering but rather laughing over at 85 Broad Street as the profits set records and the White House provides them with their lawyers.

To View Older Posts, Please See Old Musings IV

 

Beginnings

With apologies to Evelyn Waugh, it is now time to speak of Ray.  The overarching influence in my life has been my father.  He shadows all things.  And while it is true that a more psychologically balanced individual could and should have managed such a domineering force in their life, I could not.  The result was that I allowed him to mold and shape me through anger, guilt, physical abuse and - with a mind much duller than his - powerful, emotionless logic.  He wanted me and my brother to be carbon copies of himself.  No charting your own course in the Harding family. 

Which was strange considering my grandfather, Mane Harding, was such an open man who really just wanted his son and grandsons to be "satisfied" in all that they did.  That was always the word he used.  He never asked me if I liked my teachers or a particular job I had, but was I satisfied.  I loved him for a lot of reasons but a big one was his use of that word and what it represented.   Like me, he approached life as a consumer.  I receive a service and should be pleased with it.  I have a job and should derive some contentment from what I do all day with my time.  It wasn't quite happiness - Hardings, with the exception of me and my mother, never thought of happiness as a goal - but rather being at peace with things; a much greater achievement in fact than happiness.  Mane Harding was a hero to me and a very wise man.  When I went to prison, and all during my incarceration, I said many times how grateful I was that he was no longer alive to see this.  I could not have borne it. 

My parents were very much products of their generation.  They married in 1956 - my father not even 21 and my mother 19 - and had a child, my brother Robert, 11 months later.  They were stone cold broke and going to school.  My mother dropped out to support my father and he worked as well as went to college and then law school.  My brother stayed with my grandparents who lived in the same building.  My parent's long hours of work and school didn't make much time for parenting and my brother would see them mostly on weekends.  My brother slept on a cot in the kitchen as that's where there was available bed space.  Although never openly acknowledged by him, these and other childhood experiences would deeply effect my brother's psyche for the rest of his life.

Why they had me I'll never know.  I suppose my parents did what the times dictated and no one had just one child.  Certainly not young, Jewish parents in Washington Heights.  So they had a second child child six and a half years after their first. 

My father was a stern man in those days. A cross between Raymond Burr (as Perry Mason), Mr. Spock and Jack Webb (as Joe Friday).  I feared him and his punishments.  The slightest act of what he perceived as disrespect or disobedience would result in a sharp, hard, open handed smack across the back of my head.  Often times repeatedly.  He had an accompanying name for the punishment which he would say as he performed it.  It was done in anger mostly and it hurt.  There is no question that the repeated act of doing this would today be considered child abuse.  Back then it was discipline.  He would do this anywhere and everywhere over the smallest thing and usually when he was in a bad mood.  The most memorable incident was at Gov. Hugh Carey's second inauguration.  As we were walking out of the Assembly Chamber my father, in a very bad mood for some reason, decided I had given him a dirty look at something he had just said.  He whacked the hell out of me right there in the Capitol.  Although not present that day, my mother was indifferent to all this, always indifferent, unless it affected her.

Early on she would physically abuse my brother.  Nearly every weekend, from the time I first had consciousness to about the age of 7, I would wake in the room my brother and I shared to her screaming and crying.  This is a special talent of my mother's.  She screams and hysterically cries simultaneously.  That was how I remember waking up most weekends in that bedroom.  My mother would start her screaming at my brother, throw back the covers, drag him out of bed naked and then begin chasing him with a belt with which she would whip him.  I never knew what these episodes were about or what set her off.  I don't think my brother really did anything.  She was, I believe, just an unhappy person with a totally uncommunicative husband.

It finally stopped when one day my brother, who by this point was nearly as tall as my mother, grabbed the belt and said, "This stops today.  One more time and I take this to you."  It was a brazen thing to say and he never would have done it but he sounded like he meant it and she was totally taken aback.  She resumed her crying and screaming at a decibel level so high you could shatter china.  She said to him, "Oh yea?  You're gonna hit me?  You're a big man?  You're gonna hit your mother?"  But it worked, she never touched him again and those weekend morning hysterics ceased.

Other than those episodes, and they generally ended by the time I was 8, it was my father we feared.  And as far as he was concerned, fear was just about the right emotion sons should have in measure for their father.  I don't know where or how he came by his views on parenting, but they were his own and he thought they were 100% on target.  In the earlier part of his life, prior to say age 50, he was sure of all things that he had done and how he had conducted himself.  He didn't believe in a lot of introspection.  Certainly the raising of his children gave him no cause for second thoughts.

From an age too young to remember I began calling my parents by their first names.  I don't know why or whose idea it was.  I didn't then and still don't think it was a sign of disrespect, as my father never would have permitted that.  I guess we're just not a mom and dad kind of family.  There was a girl I knew in college and for some years after who, along with her brother, referred to her parents as mommy and daddy.  That was never gonna happen in our family.  So it was always Liz and Ray.

Ray worked hard in the Liberal Party rising up through the ranks first in the Washington Heights section of Manhattan and then in Bronx County after we moved to Riverdale.  A quick history:  The Liberal Party was formed as a breakaway from the American Labor Party (ALP).  FDR wanted a second line in NY to run on in 1944 and was concerned, as were many, that the ALP had become infiltrated with communists.  He turned to Alex Rose, David Dubinsky, other labor leaders, New Deal coalition partners and asked them to form a progressive third party alternative to the ALP.  They founded the Liberal Party (LP). 

As Ray has told the story on many occasions, he went to a LP meeting in Washington Heights and asked someone who the old man was who never spoke and sat in the back.  He learned that it was Alex Rose who also lived in Washington Heights.  That's how they met and Ray came to Alex's attention.  Ray would become a protege, in the end the protege, of Alex.   First becoming Chair of Bronx County and then when Alex and former mayor Wagner were instrumental in the candidacy of Hugh Carey as Governor - first as a very long shot in the primary against Howard Samuels and then in the general election against Gov. Malcolm Wilson - Ray was chosen to be Alex's guy on the Second Floor.  That term refers to the area of the Capitol Building occupied by the Governor's Office.  Ray was going to be the Liberal Party's man in the Carey Administration.  There was a nice side note to the Carey transition in that it took place in the Commodore Hotel where my grandfather had been head waiter in the banquet rooms for many years and had only recently retired.  The whole thing had a nice Upstairs/Downstairs quality to it.

What this all meant for me was that my cold, emotionally distant father was now going to be geographically distant as well.  He would be spending four days a week living in Albany.  I don't think I much cared, it was more of a relief.  By this point, in my tenth year, I was already pretty messed up in the head.  I was a very nervous kid and had developed irritable bowel syndrome (back then called a Spastic Colon) and had already started bleeding rectally on regular basis.  Everything made me nervous and tense.  Because of the constant shouting and yelling in our house, I have to this day a terrible aversion to loud and sudden noises.  I was not what you would call an easy-going and relaxed kid.

When I was about six years old I developed a bad case of warts on the back of my neck.  Liz made an appointment at a doctor who specialized in this.  He said he could cure this and his method was to burn them off.  With my mother in the office he had me lay down on the exam table and proceeded to employ some device that burned my neck; it was basically a hot poker - this was 1970.  I jumped off the table and began screaming and wouldn't stop.  The doctor kicked us out of the office.  Outside on the street my mother began screaming at me that she was mortified by my behavior; that we had been kicked out; that she had missed a day of work and that she still had to find a doctor.  She then turned and slapped me in the face.

Our pediatrician recommended another doctor.  We went.  When we were in his office my mother explained what had happened with the previous doctor.  The doctor asked for the the other doctor's name.  Upon hearing it he explained that the other doctor was a well known quack and that his method not only wouldn't have worked it would have scarred me for life.  He told me I had done the right thing.  My mother was mortified.  The doctor said my warts were caused by nerves (I told you I was a very nervous kid) and that there was a simple home remedy that would make them go away (ice and milk applied with a towel on the back of the neck - don't laugh, it worked).  Outside his office Liz started crying and begging my forgiveness for how she treated me and for having taken me to that quack doctor.  She said she couldn't believe she had done something that would have caused me to have been burned.  I said I forgave her, but clearly it left a memorable scar.

As I was a latch key kid, since a very early age, I had developed an irrational fear of being left alone in our apartment at night.  It's not an uncommon circumstance.  My parents, due to their jobs, LP work (my mother was also very involved then) and social activities, came home late most evenings.  In my younger days - ages 4 through 8 - I had nannies or babysitters in the afternoons until my mother came home from work. When I was eight we moved up the block to a new apartment and this stopped.  My brother was expected to keep an eye on me if needed.  Our age difference was such that we hardly spoke and when we did it was usually to fight.  A seven year age difference especially when raised in two different economic environments is very difficult.  By the time they had me and I was starting kindergarten we were definitely middle class.  Maybe just, but no longer poor. 

My brother had real issues with how I was raised versus his upbringing.  And those issues would color our relationship and last the rest of our lives.  What he never understood was that while it is totally true that our family was poor when he was a kid, there was a much greater sense of family.  Look for any pictures of my youth. There are almost none.  My brother on the other hand had elaborate birthday parties with many guests, family and thought given to their planning. There are lots of pictures of his early years.  My parents did the whole interested dutiful thing for him since he was first-born and they were still interested.  When my turn came they had no interest, patience or time.  What they had was some more money.  So that was the trade off.  I know my brother wouldn't have wanted to switch places with me but he's resented me my whole life just the same. 

My brother graduated high school early, at 16, in December of his senior year.  I was therefore pretty much home alone after I came home from school.  From a very early age I had developed an irrational fear of burglars breaking into our apartment.  I insisted that my parents keep their bedroom door open at night so they could hear me scream if something happened.  I don't know if I ever explicitly told them that 'something happened' meant burglars breaking in and trying to kill me, but that's what it meant.    We lived on the top floor of a high rise with easy access to our terrace from the roof of the building.  In fact, on a few occasions someone had tried to break into the apartment through the window in my brother's room that looked out onto the terrace.  It was gated so they never succeeded.  Many a night, alone in the apartment, I would be convinced that someone was breaking in.  Either a noise or a feeling would set me off.  I would sneak out quietly and go downstairs and sit with the doorman until my parents returned.  They were not happy to come home and find me in my robe in the lobby.  From about the age of 5 continuing to this day, the only constant/recurring dream I have ever had is of burglars breaking in and trying to kill me.  For at least 30 years it was the exact same dream, taking place in our old apartment and ending with the burglar throwing me over the terrace which was at the top of a very steep incline.  After that it morphed into whatever apartment I happened to be living in.  They continue to this day.

One night, returning late, my mother said, "We feel you're alone too much and we want to do something about it."  Thank God, I thought, no more facing the burglars alone.  I assumed they were going to tell me that they had decided to cut back on their activities and she would come home earlier.  I didn't think he could cut short his 4-day week in Albany this soon after starting.  I also wasn't sure I wanted him to.  "Your father and I have decided that you should get a dog," she told me.  A dog?  Now I know some - perhaps most - kids pine their entire childhood for a dog, I get that.  However, I hadn't.  We were not a pet family and the idea of owning a dog had never been discussed.  It just wasn't something that would have been raised for discussion in our family.  At least prior to that night apparently.  

OK, a dog.  My mind started racing.  I'm immediately thinking cute puppy - very cute puppy.    I knew nothing about dogs and neither did my parents.  What kind do you get?  I didn't even know the right questions to ask.  All I knew was puppy!

"We'll go to the Bid-A-Wee Home and get a rescued dog one day this week," she said.  A rescued dog?  Do they rescue puppies?  So I took the bus downtown after school to meet my mother at her office so we could go to Bid-A-Wee together.  We walked around there for about 5 minutes.  It was all very sad and depressing.  Plus, there were no puppies.  Nothing how I was picturing this moment.  We hadn't read any books on dogs, dog care, or dog training.  We had done absolutely no research for this moment.  Nor had we made a single purchase to prepare for his arrival.  As a dog owner some years later, I can tell you this is absolutely the wrong way to get a pet and a sure-fire formula for it not working out.  I settled on a mixed-breed.  I have no idea why I chose him.  I think it was because he wasn't barking; barking scared me.  They told us he was probably part shepard, labrador and maybe some beagle.  

My mother paid them for shots, food, a leash, a collar and made a donation.  We took the dog home in a cab.  I think it was in the cab I decided to name him Sherlock after Sherlock Holmes.  I somehow pictured this dog wearing the famous deerstalker hat that Holmes always wore.  I was 10 years old and in the fifth grade.  I came home every day at lunch to walk him.  My relationship with the dog lasted less than a week.  By the time my father came back that weekend from Albany I had decided I didn't want this dog.  When I came home at lunch to walk him he would growl and bark at me.  He wasn't house trained and would pee in my bed.  He cried and whimpered much of the time.   No one had prepared me for any of this.  I was expecting a puppy who would lick my face. 

Liz cried and screamed at me.  She had Ray take me to Bid-A-Wee to return the dog.  She wouldn't talk to me for two weeks; she called me heartless, wicked and evil.  I especially remember evil.  In retrospect he was clearly an abused dog.  No one had explained that to me or what it meant.  I didn't know dogs could be emotionally damaged.  I thought they just came cute and lovable fully prepared to love you unconditionally.  I interpreted his insecurity as my own.   I assumed he didn't like me and therefore I didn't want him around.  And if it were possible for a 10 year old to fathom this concept, maybe I also didn't want to assuage their guilt over leaving me alone by keeping the dog.  I know that wasn't a conscious thought at the time, but maybe, on some level, I also resented the easy one-stop Bid-A-Wee dog pick-up service.  No puppy, no thought given to what dog should go in an apartment, what my schedule after school would be and what dog fit best in the city versus the country.  Nothing.  But most importantly I had never expressed any desire for a dog. 

I know lots of people who have sons and are amazed that these boys, coming from the same parents and the same environment can turn out so differently.  My brother and I were alike insofar as Ray was the dominant presence in both our lives.  We did share the same sense of humor and liked the same foods but that was pretty much it.  He was out-going, sports oriented and level headed.  I was dark, moody, and impulsive.  We never got along when we were children.  In fact not until we were adults and then only for a brief time. 

At the reception for his wedding my brother made a comment in response to my toast that he liked or respected what he saw in me the previous summer (we had spent 3 weeks petitioning for Ray and the LP all over upstate NY).  I was already in college and I think this was the first time in his life that he liked me.  I think that dawned on him during that wedding weekend.  He had spent so much of our lives resenting and disliking me that it was noticeable to him that his feelings had changed.  I was a younger brother and wanted - I won't say craved - my brothers attention when we were growing up.  But the age difference was too much and he wasn't interested.  I went to visit him a few times when he was in college.  I took a 9-hour train ride to Plattsburgh.  It was one of many experiences that later on when Bob had kids would have been totally unthinkable for his children.  Bob turned out to be this bizarrely over-protective father.  My parents could never figure out where it came from.  I had a blast visiting him in college.  Bob had a rough start to his college career.  He was originally accepted to and attended SUNY Buffalo.  Within days, maybe hours of being there he called my father sobbing that he didn't want to stay.  The unbelievable irony is that I was the one growing up who had major problems with being away from home.  Every year my parents would send me to sleep away camp and every year I would beg to come home.  It always got so bad that they had to bring me home early.  My brother loved sleep away camp so it had never occurred to Liz and Ray that college would be an issue for him.

Bob always had a very small group of friends growing up.  He was a high school football player and didn't partake in the freedoms of his era, the early 70's.  SUNY Buffalo then - and even when I was applying to college - had a reputation as a big drug school.  Everyone knew that.  I supposed Bob didn't give it that much thought or what it meant to be away from home.  Well he gets there and everyone is smoking pot.  This was deeply upsetting to him.  He said he couldn't handle it.  I remember the night he first called home and asked to speak to Ray. He sounded really troubled.  Ray was working for Gov. Carey at the time and reached out to the Chancellor of SUNY to ask his advice as to where Bob should transfer and could he help.  It was the Chancellor who suggested Plattsburgh and smoothed the way.  Bob switched but still didn't adjust quickly to college life.  Ray would make bi weekly and then monthly trips to meet Bob for dinner at a restaurant half way between Albany and Plattsburgh.  I never understood what it was about college that scarred him so much in the beginning.  I was thrilled to go to college and get away from home.  And yet 4-6 weeks of camp in the summer was unbearable to me.  Go figure. Same parents, same environment and we could not have been more different. 

Campaign 2012

10/13/11                A Question of Faith

           Is Mitt Romney's faith fair game?  Do journalists and other candidates have a right and obligation to question him about it?  The answer is yes and no.  It is no one's business, candidate or not, how Gov. Romney prays or to whom he prays.  Further, I would not consider it reasonable or useful to ask a candidate be he Christian or Jew whether he believes Noah actually had an arc or if God created Eve from Adam's rib.  Events that occurred 2,000 or 5,000 years ago are not helpful in learning about a man's mind or philosophy. 

But I do think it is perfectly fair to ask a candidate about the tenets of his Church as practiced today or during his lifetime as a parishioner.  It's perfectly appropriate, in my view, to ask a Catholic candidate for Governor whether his church's view on abortion or gay rights would influence his legislative agenda once in office.  The religious views a candidate holds are instructional to me as they demonstrate a man's thinking. 

We have a breakthrough moment here with a Mormon coming very close to the Oval Office.  Personally, I think the Mormon faith is on par with Scientology.  I have only met Mormons who were decent, friendly people.  But have you ever met someone in your life who looked totally normal until you struck up a conversation with them and very quickly came to realize that the person was nuts?  To me, that's Mormonism.  Is it useful to know if Mitt Romney really thinks Joseph Smith spoke to angels and found golden plates that he immediately lost?  No, it's not.  But he belongs to a Church that as recently as 1978 refused the priesthood to black people.  If he belonged to a country club that had refused membership to black people in 1978 I guarantee you'd be hearing all about it. 

I'm not a Christian so it doesn't offend me that Mormons adopt an additional text beyond the Bible, as it does so many evangelicals.  But I am cautious of electing a man who holds to the weird precepts of the Mormon faith (i.e multiple Heavens, multiple Gods, Jesus visiting America, etc.).  Faith is about belief where there is no rationality.  But if a candidate came forward who said he believed the only path to spiritual enlightenment came through revering muskrats as God's chosen oracles, I think we'd have a problem with that.  It doesn't harm anyone to believe that, but it makes you question what else this person is capable of believing.

Rick Perry should be roundly condemned for using that stooge Jeffries as a front to start what he's hoping will become a disqualifying debate among primary voters.  It's a waste of everyone's time to debate whether Mormons are Christians.  If Pastor Jeffries comments are meant to imply that only Christians can be president, that's hateful.  If not, then what was the point he was trying to make other than sowing discord?  

I would prefer if we kept religion out of presidential politics.  It's use in the last 30 years has only been cynical.  George W. Bush is a born again Christian who shredded the Constitution and started two endless wars.  His faith has no relevance to me as it relates to the rest of description.  Only what he did - versus what he said he would do - is relevant to me. 

But just as it was extremely revealing to learn that Jerry Ford did not believe that Eastern Europe was under Soviet domination - and all that that implied about his thinking and decision making - so too I'd like to know more about Mitt Romney's belief in the recent elevation of black people to human status.  I would never vote for a Muslim for president because I believe the Koran to be a hate-filled text that is antithetical to everything we believe in as a pluralistic democracy.  To me it's like saying could I separate out a candidate's Klan membership from his policy positions that I otherwise might support?  No, I couldn't.  The jury is out for me about Mitt Romney's faith. Is it just odd or exclusionary and warping?

I have said I believe he is the only candidate running who can beat Obama and I encourage the party to get behind him.  But I also think he needs to say more about his faith, not less.  I think he needs to provide some comfort to the many who view his faith as cultish.  It's not a matter of whether he should be allowed to run as a Mormon, that's silly.  It's what his values and beliefs tell us about the man and how he may govern.  Some may find no value in that.  I'm not so sure.

 

            Romney Holds, Perry Snoozes

                I usually don't much care what post debate polls show, but I am eagerly awaiting the results after tonight's debate.  First, my favorite moment was when Gov. Romney threw his only question - and a softball one at that - to Michele Bachmann.  Boy was that smart.  He needs to kill Perry and keep Cain from surging.  All three draw from the same base but Bachmann has the weakest support.  So Romney chose to give her more air time to help boost her numbers, if possible.  Very smart.

I think the candidates must have read this blog at some point today.  Every one of my points, nearly verbatim, was used by the candidates: Nancy Pelosi's new stream of revenue, 666, a new federal stream of revenue without tackling the income tax, all my stuff.  I know they didn't read it here but it was nice to see nonetheless.  I was wrong about Chris Christie; Romney only mentioned him once. 

Rick Perry was downright somnolent.  Somebody on his team must have told him to look like he hadn't napped.  Boy was he awful.  He looked like he was scheduled to be somewhere else and wound up in that auditorium at the last minute by mistake.

Romney wasn't terrific, but with Perry so bad he didn't have to be. Gingrich was very good and Santorum was surprisingly effective.  As for Herman Cain, he has this one issue and it sucks.  So I don't see where he goes when the news media start tearing apart the plan and explaining to conservatives why they should innately hate this scheme.  But for now, he's having his moment.

I must say that I thought Charlie Rose and the debate's sponsors were reckless and wasted a terrific opportunity by not including a 30 second response from each candidate on their view of a US response to the Iranian terror plot.  No world breaking news that wasn't economics would be worthy of an answer on a night that had this news with all these candidates sitting there?  Seems insane to me.

 

10/11/11                Way to Go, Mitt

                You gotta hand it to the Romney people; they do not let moss grow under their feet.  They know what we all know which is that if Rick Perry can't knock one out of the park tonight and gives another bumbling debate performance then he is toast, or soon to be toast.  In line with that, they got the Wall Street Journal today to publish a front page story debunking the Perry jobs miracle and basically comparing his economic approach with that of Solyndra. {I don't actually know that the WSJ and Romney campaign are in cahoots.  It just looks that way.}

Then, to insure Perry is viewed as second tier status, they apparently will receive the endorsement this afternoon of Gov. Chris Christie.  This on top of the self-inflicted wound of Pastor Jeffries' hate-filled embrace of Perry.  Strike three.  All very nicely timed on the day of the make or break debate. 

Of course Perry could live up to his previous billing as an amazing campaigner and surprise us tonight.  My guess is that he'll prove true to form: good on the attack in the beginning, bad at defense and flagging by the end.  Charlie Rose, for all of his pompous windbaggery, is not the crew from Fox.  This is sure to be a fairly high-minded economics debate.  I cannot imagine Rick Perry playing well at that level.  We shall see.  Let's also count tonight how many times Romney mentions the Christie endorsement.  Might be a new drinking game.

{BTW - If Romney is smart, he will mention tonight that Rick Perry now has an illegal immigrant college tuition program that is identical to Jerry Brown's.  In fact, when he is attacked for being the model for Obamacare he should shoot back that Jerry Brown has clearly used Perry's plan as a model.  With Ted Kennedy dead, nothing is worse than being compared to Jerry Brown.}

Addendum:  One last thing in the wake of the Christie endorsement.  All that Wall Street money that's been waiting for Chris Christie appears to be moving to Romney.  One fundraiser in particular worth noting is Paul Singer.  I already knew Romney was very strong on Israel, so Singer's signing up doesn't tell me much in that regard.  But as you know, Paul Singer is one of the leading financial backers for marriage equality in this country. Can I assume that Paul Singer's endorsement of Romney means he got some OK answers about gay marriage, Don't Ask/Don't Tell or DOMA?  As good a Republican as Paul Singer is, I can't imagine he would support a presidential candidate who would be vociferously hostile to his son's lifestyle.  At least I'd like to think so.

 

10/12/11                No No No to 9-9-9

                 I think if someone asked an evangelical Christian economist what they thought of Herman Cain's tax plan they might point out that 999 is 666 upside down.  I would tend to agree that his proposal, leaving out any 'fairness' arguments, is pretty evil.

Herman Cain should be applauded for putting out there his long-term tax plan.  His recent meteoric rise in the polls is, I believe, a reflection of voter's appreciation of his candor and willingness to verbalize a refreshingly succinct and comprehensive solution.  It just happens to be, however, the plan someone who is the long-term financier for the welfare state might create.  

I have spent most of my life being opposed to any introduction in the United States of a European type VAT scheme.  I am slightly more sanguine these days about that. But the one thing that hasn't changed for me is my firm belief that in order to introduce one you would first need to repeal the 16th Amendment.  Why?

OK, here is where Herman Cain's plan becomes so dangerous that no Republican anywhere would ever support it or actually vote to enact it.  These numbers of his - 9% income tax, 9% national sales tax, 9% corporate tax - would be legislatively defined and enacted.  That would mean that once created they could be changed by any Congress at any point in the future with a simple vote.  No Republican sitting in Congress - and especially this or any new Congress in 2013 - is going to give the federal government a broad new taxing authority while leaving in place the old one.   You can just see Grover Norquist's head exploding at the mere thought of this.

There would be nothing stopping a majority Democratic House & Senate in the future from raising the 9% income tax to say 30%; or reintroducing a graduated, progressive tax with several rates.  So what you would wind up with would be Nancy Pelosi's ultimate fantasy: an enormous new pool of revenue and greatly increased taxes on higher income earners.  Soon, such a Congress would exempt low income earners from the 9% and we would be right back where we are now EXCEPT we would have this broad national sales tax vacuuming up huge amounts of revenue. 

Herman Cain's plan would vastly expand the federal government's spending and reduce the need for deficit reduction or scaling back federal power.  Many in the Democratic Party would call this a good thing.  And from their point of view of far-reaching, expansive federal power it would be.  But for any Republican, be they Wall Street, Main Street or Tea Party, the effects of Herman Cain's tax proposal without first repealing the 16th Amendment would be disastrous.  9-9-9?  I'm thinking more like 6-6-6.

Deborah E. Landis

9/19/11        With Apologies to My Prosecutor

Someone e-mailed me the other day and took me to task for making an allegation that I never substantiated.  As it happens, they are correct.  I made an allegation awhile back against my prosecutor, Deborah E. Landis, that she defrauded the federal government out of tens of thousands of dollars.  I never provided back-up for that charge. Let me now correct that error.

First, let me just explain why I didn't explain sooner.  I have been extremely remiss in posting regular chapters to J'Accuse, the story of my case.  I had planned on posting them faster and with greater frequency.  The back-up to the charge will be in there when it reaches that point chronologically.  But I try very hard on this site not to make an empty charge and never a false one.  So since I didn't follow-up quickly in J'Accuse, I should have written the facts behind that accusation when I made it or shortly thereafter.  I am now correcting that error and thank the reader who prompted it.

Although we know the government has two standards of justice - one for us and one for anyone at Justice, it is still wrong for the U.S. Justice Department to indict people for illegal acts it condones routinely for its employees.  The Declaration of Independence reminds us that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."  That consent is given so long as the Government doesn't abuse those powers.  I think as far as the federal government broadly - and Justice specifically - we're long past the point of no return (i.e Fast & Furious). 

Part of my indictment involved an incident that took place at HDC involving a subordinate and his ailing father.  The father was having triple bypass surgery at the Cleveland Clinic and the employee - for whatever reason - was having financial troubles.  He and his mother were going to stay at a YMCA type facility for little or no charge.  I said that HDC would pick up the charge for a decent motel for the three nights they were there.  I was indicted for that.

In 2005 I was awaiting trial at Butner FMC when I called one of my lawyers, Henry Mazurek for an update.   He informed me that neither he nor Jerry (Shargel) had heard from the prosecutor, Debbie Landis, in weeks.  Her deputy could provide no info because apparently he wasn't hearing from her either.  Henry told me further that it now takes 3-4 weeks to get any e-mail response from Debbie on our pending issues with her.

I was rather stunned by this since as a Senior Assistant U.S. Attorney, Debbie worked on only one case at a time.  Mine was her only case; she had no other work but prosecuting me.  If she wasn't responding to our requests for weeks at a time, what was she doing?  I remember vividly asking Henry if she was on vacation.  No, he replied, she had had herself transferred to another District and was working from there.  Huh?  I am her only case - here in New York City - and she is now working somewhere else on this case?  I told Henry that I did not understand what he was telling me.  He informed me that Debbie had told Jerry that her father was very ill, probably dying.  He lived in the Midwest (I think it was Milwaukee).  So she had herself transferred for the time being to the U.S. Attorney's Office near her father. 

Now ordinarily this bureaucratic/human resources slight of hand would only engender sympathy, not scorn.  But here you have Debbie transferring herself to another District in order to continue being paid her salary - which was mid six figures - and benefits, rather than doing what I can hear her telling the Judge I should have done in a similar circumstance: She could have taken sick leave, vacation leave, unpaid leave or appropriately, leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.  But she wanted to keep getting paid and accruing benefits.  But that would be one thing.  She wanted to keep getting paid and not perform any work.  That is something entirely different.  During the ensuing months she collected tens of thousands of dollars of salary from the federal government and performed virtually no work on the only case she had, mine.  According to Henry, she spent most days at her father's bedside. 

Now if I had decided to run HDC from Seattle in order to care for a sick relative, you can be sure I would have had that included in my indictment since the very idea that I could do my job from 3,000 miles away for any extended period of time is absurd.  And yet she - conspiring with her superiors who approved this phony transfer - knowingly took salary for work that was never performed.  As I said, Henry told me it took weeks to get any response from her to a single e-mail.  I would hear this over and over again during the following months.  Her deputy said he couldn't get answers to our questions either because she wasn't communicating with him.

The Federal Criminal Code, as you well know, has an Honest Services Statute.  This is a clear violation of that, not to mention a conspiracy charge since her bosses, Karen Patton Seymour and the then U.S. Attorney, Michael Garcia, surely had to know that she could not perform her duties on her one and only case back in New York from the Midwest.   It was a scam as surely as someone scamming Medicare with false claims or a 9/11 victim claiming false injuries.  Whether you employ a strict or lenient standard, it's pure fraud.

So she stayed there for a few months, performed virtually no work, collected her full salary and accrued all her benefits.  Her father died, she buried him and she came back to NY to resume my case.  Under normal circumstances, a very touching story.

But under these, it's obscene hypocrisy.  My case went on for months longer than necessary because she wouldn't come back to New York to do her job, although she was paid her full salary during this period to pretend that she was.  This is one of a thousand examples that happen at Justice where the rules for the governed differ from those of the governing.   We are certainly a nation with a two-tiered justice system.  But the black/white divide is only one part of that. 

Debbie Landis should have been investigated by the Inspector General, fired or at a minimum sanctioned and fined.  Her superiors likewise should have been reprimanded for knowingly allowing this fraud to occur.  But of course no such thing happened.  No one investigates Justice employees for criminal behavior except other Justice employees.  And as we know: A. That happens very rarely; and B. when it does, they are either exonerated, transferred or allowed to quietly resign. No one is ever punished for criminal behavior while an employee at Justice - it just isn't done.

Debbie Landis went on to indict many other people, several for defrauding the federal government; her crime having gone unnoticed, uninvestigated, unprosecuted and unpunished.  I conclude this sorry tale by apologizing to her for alluding to this episode earlier and never explaining it.

SHARGEL

 

Shargel Complaint

                I noticed that on the day of and day after Ray Harding's sentencing there was a spike in views to this site.  I am sure many of you might have wanted to know my reaction.  Well my reaction took place away from the blogosphere on that day.  My reaction took the form of a complaint against Gerald Shargel filed with the Disciplinary Committee of the NYS Bar Association.  A copy of which is attached herein:  RAH LETTER

Did it bother me that my father and his lawyer sought to scapegoat me as the cause of all his self-created troubles?  Not really.    Ray has become a complete coward, so I honestly expected no better.  Mafia bosses don't treat their children this badly.  Still, however, a shocking thing to read.  Bernie Madoff agreed to all the prosecution asked including a 150 year prison sentence in order to protect his wife and sons.  Ray Harding throws his son on the pyre at every conceivable opportunity.  I just watch him in awe and wonder.  What a despicable and decrepit shadow of himself he's become.  Why have I not spoken to the man in eight years?  The answer is on display every time he throws me under this bus of his own creation.

I say that because as you'll see in the letter to the NYSBA I have no idea what Ray is talking about when he's blaming me for his troubles.  He claims to have conspired to defraud the pension fund of $800,000 out of some necessity to pay my legal bills.  Total news to me when I first read it in April 2008 as part of Attorney General Cuomo's complaint. I never asked Ray for a dime since before I retained Shargel through to this moment and had no knowledge of any payment ever made from him to Shargel. 

But as I say in the letter, every law enforcement and judicial player in this Ray Harding drama accepts his 'excuse'.  If that's true, then Jerry Shargel is guilty of gross ethical misconduct at a minimum and perhaps some criminal activity.  The time for casting about blame is over.  The Bar Assoc. needs to find out the truth as accepted by two Attorneys General and act accordingly against Shargel and stop him from doing this to any future clients.

 

8/5/11    Shargel Response

 

Shargel Response.pdf

Well here's the Shargel response.  I have included the entire submission minus an attached docket of my whole case.  I cannot see its relevance since half of it doesn't include Shargel.  But maybe it's some requirement.  I will be sending the Committee a detailed response next week but here are some quick points now:

1. I don't believe the 'Dear Jerry' letter is authentic.  What does authenticity mean in this instance?  First, it is surely inauthentic in that I never, ever, at any time authorized or asked Ray Harding to make any payments whatsoever to Jerry Shargel.  Never!  Second, as I will detail in my formal response the phrasing, and above all the date, of the letter are highly suspicious.  Clearly Jerry didn't tell his lawyer all the facts if they chose that particular date. I do not believe that this letter, like the Dinkins 'Dear Dad' letter, would stand up to forensic scrutiny.

2. The letter claims I asked Ray to pay Jerry $100,000 of which this is the first payment.  Mr. Ross states that Shargel only received $50,000 from Ray.  What happened to the supposed second installment?  Apparently, that is left to the reader's imagination.

3. Mr. Ross states liberally throughout the response that my accusations are baseless because I knew of all this as he relates a conversation had between me and Shargel where I acknowledged and approved these payments.  The conversation referenced is wholly fictitious, never took place. 

It's a very detailed restatement.  And fortunately for Mr. Shargel, I cannot provide him with enough waivers and acknowledgements.  How convenient that there is no document with my signature to memorialize that conversation.  Can it be that their defense is based solely on a fabricated conversation?  It may be.  Which partially relates to why they chose that date for the letter. 

4. Rather than addressing the fact that numerous law enforcement officials have stated declaratively that Ray paid Shargel (long after March 25, 2003), Mr. Ross dangles this letter before the Committee in the hopes of distracting them.

5. Mr. Ross quotes from this blog and attaches a post as an exhibit.  At least I thank him for that.  He undermines his entire point by including the whole post.  Yes, in October 2009 I stated that I did not believe Attorney General Cuomo's allegation.  I go on to say that should it prove true, I will file a complaint.  That's all correct.  I did not believe Shargel capable of this then.  However, the numerous subsequent statements - on the record - from a host of state officials, not to mention Ray Harding through his attorney, makes the matter beyond dispute.  And I filed a complaint.  What's his point?

6. Most glaringly, the date of March 2003 is long before the alleged criminal activity Ray Harding was charged with or to which he plead guilty.  Clearly, were this payment even real, it would not be the monies to which Cuomo et al. are referring.

7. Mr. Ross calls me a lot of names (i.e angry, disgruntled, etc.).  To the contrary, I am very at peace.  Seeking to redress the wrong committed by Jerry Shargel doesn't make me spiteful or vengeful.  Rather, it makes me committed and determined to seek the truth.  I hope the committee will do the same after receiving my reply.

Lastly, for the record, I would like to correct here at least one of Mr. Ross's many errors.  Ray Harding is not Jerry Shargel's father (Ross letter pg. 4).  Sadly, he is mine.  Ah, were it otherwise.

 

8/21/11    RAH Legal Updates

Two pieces of legal news for me in the last 72 hours.  First, on Friday morning I filed my response to the Shargel Answer to my complaint. 

My response is a little lengthy and perhaps slightly verbose, but I was so offended by the tactics and sloppy logic used by Shargel's lawyer that I went to pains to point them out.  His Answer basically came down to making stuff up that involved me in their alibi and then use that created series of events to claim I knew and approved all along Shargel was taking payments from Ray Harding.  It's the kind of excuse you'd expect from a teenager and not a trio of experienced trial lawyers.

RAH Response

 

 

J'ACCUSE - Part IX

On the day my indictment was unsealed - St. Patrick's Day 2003 - I was arrested at my home and taken first to the U.S. Attorney's Office.  I was then moved to a holding cell beneath the courthouse.  This was a big day for me since I had never been handcuffed before and had never been in jail.  With the exception of a few speeding tickets, I had never had any interaction with law enforcement on a personal basis. 

Before being put in the cell, I was fingerprinted and photographed.  "Wow, this is my mug shot," I thought to myself.  I arrived in that holding cell at about 9 AM.  I had spoken to Jerry Shargel, my attorney, from my house before I left.  I expected him to meet me and get me out of that cell as quickly as possible.  But that was not to be.  Jerry had been waiting for days for the jury in Peter Gotti's case to return with a verdict.  Although I did not know this while in the cell, the jury had announced they had reached a verdict that morning and Jerry was at Federal Court in Brooklyn (Interestingly, Gotti and I would later be in the same unit in prison).  I sat in that cell and grew increasingly pissed and nervous.  Why wasn't he coming?  Why was this taking so long?  What did it mean?  I was a total neophyte to all this and every tea leaf I interpreted as bad news.  Around noon one of Jerry's associates came to tell me what was going on and why he hadn't shown up.  Although I wasn't happy, at least now I knew why.  

When I was first brought down to the holdings cells I was put in a cell by myself.  I was grateful for this.  As time went by other men were brought in with me.  I was conspicuous by being the only white person not to mention the only one in a suit.  Although very nervous at first, in time I was glad for the company.  None of these guys was particularly scary.  I remember one young hispanic guy in particular.

You know how you read about suspects/defendants who are placed in cells with government informants and in short order the defendant is giving up all sorts of information about his crimes to a total stranger?  I always had a hard time believing that.  Who is stupid enough to tell a total stranger something you didn't want your prosecutor to know?  But sure enough this hispanic fellow is telling me about his drug crimes and where all the money is hidden that the government is looking for.  Was he being truthful?  Who knows.  But I thought it incredibly odd he was telling me this.

At some point the guards brought lunch which consisted of turkey sandwiches from a deli.  I looked at the sandwiches and turned up my nose.  I did not eat them.  I mention this only because when I returned to this same cell two years later, I would have a much different reaction to that turkey sandwich.

At around 3 or 4 PM Jerry finally arrived and I was taken to a holding cell right outside the courtroom.  At this point I had no idea who the judge assigned to my case would be.  As you may know, in the Federal system it is done by lottery.  Jerry and I had discussed beforehand who we would want as a judge and who we definitely did not want.  The spectrum ranged from Judge Sheindlin - positive - to Judge Casey who is known by everyone as 'the blind judge,' because he's apparently legally blind - negative. 

I was taken into the courtroom and the rest you pretty much know from watching TV court dramas.  There was however a lot of press there.  The one thing that struck me as very odd, then and in the future, was that Judge Lewis Kaplan never asked me to plead to the charges.  He never spoke to me at all.  The prosecution asked for half a million dollars and a whole host of conditions for my bail.  I turned to Jerry at one point and told him to object to them.  He refused.  He told me if we contested anything, the Government would read the chats that were supposedly found on my computer.  I said, "Let them," and he replied, "you don't want that."  I had no way of knowing at that point pre-discovery that these additional chats were mainly fabrications as well.  I knew what I had chatted about on the computer.  And however embarrassing, they were all perfectly legal and constitutionally protected speech.  One of the conditions requested by the Government was so broad and vague that even the judge couldn't approve it.  The Government wanted language inserted in the conditions that prohibited me from going anywhere where children might be present.  Kaplan rightly pointed out that this would prevent me from shopping at Bloomingdales.  He said he would not approve that one and told them to come back with better language.  They never did.  As we walked out I asked Jerry how Kaplan rated (meaning 1-10 as a good judge).  He paused and said without much conviction, "He's a five."  Jerry's poor judgement would prove to be never worse than in that assessment.

I learned a lot from that exchange between Kaplan and Deborah Landis, my prosecutor.  Debbie had somehow gotten into her head that I was the embodiment of evil.  I was simply the worst person on earth.  As such, she would behave in every instance in a completely over the top manner.  She would lie, exaggerate and use the worst kind of hyperbole.  What I started to realize that day was if you pushed back hard she would cave. 

Unfortunately for me, Jerry pushed back maybe once or twice during the entirety of my case.  In almost every instance he refused to challenge her.  One of the reasons I had hired Jerry was the incorrect notion on my part that because he was personal friends with Debbie that would benefit me.  Just the opposite turned out to be true.  In every instance he would excuse her behavior as normal and routine. By the end it was only Jerry who believed that. 

We left the courtroom and I waited for an elevator.  Jerry and Henry Mazurek, his associate, called me over to an open elevator.  It was full of reporters.  More than that, Tom Robbins who had started this all by co-creating and printing a series of fabricated chats attributed to me was in the cab as well.  As we exited, Robbins said mockingly, "Good luck, Russell."  I was furious at Jerry and Henry for putting me in that position. 

We went down to a room where defendants arrange bail.  Unbeknownst to me, Jerry and Ray had arranged my bail previously.  We were there to sign papers.  This was also the first time I had ever come face to face with my prosecutor, Debbie Landis.  Since I'm my father's son and was taught to always behave in a civil manner, I walked over to her, put out my hand and said, "Debbie, Russell Harding."  She looked at me with utter horror.  Like Pol Pot was casually introducing himself to her.  At first she wouldn't shake my hand but then reluctantly gave me a fish handshake.

As we exited the building there was a huge mob of reporters and cameras.  Jerry turned to me and whispered, "Gotti didn't have this many (meaning John, not Peter)."  It was a long walk to the garage where Jerrry had parked his car and the cameras followed and the reporters shouted questions. I didn't rate the waiting Town Car that you usually see when high profile defendants exit that building (Bernie Maddoff, Martha Stewart, etc.).

Jerry and I drove a few blocks and met Ray who was waiting in his car.  I drove back to my house with Ray.  He told me during that trip that he had met Debbie a few weeks prior when he went down there to arrange bail.  "What did you think of her," I asked him.  "Total cunt," he said.  Ray told me that during the entire time she was asking him questions she kept referring to Liz Harding as, "Russell's mother"  Finally at some point Ray said, "you mean my wife."  Debbie said no, not your wife, his mother.  She would not be convinced that Liz Harding was not only my mother but Ray's wife.  And that Ray had only been married once.  This was typical of Debbie. Her research somehow told her Ray had remarried and I was the product of his first marriage, and even Ray couldn't convince her otherwise.  That's Debbie in a nutshell -  bad, lazy research that she then defends to the death. 

As luck would have it George Bush announced a deadline for the start of the Iraq war that night.  I was relieved because I knew my story would be moved further back inside the papers the next day.

As the weeks went by Jerry received huge binders of discovery from the Government.  It was mostly receipts from trips I took or meals I had that were billed to HDC. Amusingly, at least half a dozen binders were e-mails from my deputy Luke Cusack's office account.  I say amusing because Luke had this strange habit of refusing to ever delete an e-mail.  The head of IT at HDC had complained to me about this because his e-mails were taking up a lot of space on the server and he asked me to talk to Luke. 

I did but Luke didn't want to delete anything so I didn't push it.  It was odd because in most cases like mine where a conspiracy is alleged you would expect to find some, any, e-mails between the parties confirming the conspiracy: a hint, a mention, an allusion - something.  But there wasn't a single e-mail or Blackberry post that could in any way have backed-up the charge of a conspiracy.  I mean really nothing.

That wasn't surprising to me since I wasn't engaged in any conspiracy, but I thought how disappointed the staff at the U.S. Attorney's Office must have been after going through all those documents and finding nothing.  Especially since I am sure they thought they had a gold mine in having Luke's entire e-mail correspondence with me intact.  The only e-mail worth mentioning was one from Luke to me that mentions Richard Roberts' expenses (he was Chairman of HDC and NYC's Housing Commissioner).

Through this period I was continuing to see my psychiatrist, Dr. Allan Collins.  Judge Kaplan had made a condition of my bail that I continue to see Collins; at my expense of course.  Collins, as Chair of Psychiatry at Lenox Hill, wasn't cheap.  He was costing me $250/hr.  I found our sessions increasingly less useful but was now compelled to see him regardless.  In addition, I was speaking and occasionally seeing Mark Mills the forensic shrink my first lawyer had hired and Jerry had kept on.  Mills was continuing his practice of shaking me down for large amounts of cash while never, ever presenting me with an invoice. 

As I've told you before, Mills' MO was to have his assistant call me say on a Thursday and tell me I had to Fedex to him that day $5,000 for them to have on Friday.  The calls were always urgent, frantic and out of the blue.  Since I had come to rely on Mills as a last resort for my panic attacks I was afraid not to send the money.  I came to believe - and Shargel later agreed - that Mills' millionaire lifestyle (home on Foxhall Road in DC, week long trips with his family first class at Claridge's in London, new 7 series BMW, St. Albans for his kids, etc.) was not being met by his consultant fees.  I came to believe that the frantic calls were associated with his Amex bills being due.  But that was just a guess. 

Around this time Jerry hired a jury consultant who did a few hours of work and billed me $10,000.  I met her once for a few minutes and she threw some questions at me to see what kind of witness I'd make, since it was always my intention to appear as a witness on my own behalf.  She gave me all sorts of accolades after my grilling, but who knows if that was the truth.

My days at this point were spent almost entirely alone and I was in a perpetual state of fear, panic and dread.  With the exception of the MCC, no time in prison ever rivaled the horrors of this period.  Those commentators and yahoos who tell you that defendants out on bail living in a nice apartment are carefree enjoying their freedom have never been through this experience.  It's beyond hellish.  Your life comes to a complete standstill and even the ability to move about freely only serves as a constant reminder that others are moving forward with their lives while yours is stuck in limbo.

Early every morning I would take Seabe for a walk to Central Park.  I would be in shorts or sweats and stare at all the men in suits along Fifth Avenue starting their day.  I imagined they had not a care in the world as they went off to work.  I, on the other hand, was trapped in this time vortex - never moving forward or backward, just standing still and slowly losing my mind.

Jerry seeminlgly kept to his promise to check with me before speaking to Ray or answering any questions from him.  I say this because Ray had become increasingly more direct in wanting to know what was going on in my case.  I blamed him slightly for having messed things up with my prior lawyer and their joint strategy so I wanted him kept away from the case going forward.  I placated him unsuccessfully by saying, "everything's fine."  He didn't believe it but I would offer him no more.

It became ever more difficult for me to visit Shargel in his office.  Every time I would go there I would get physically ill.  That's not helpful when you're under federal indictment.  Around this time Jerry informed me that Debbie had subpoenaed my medical records from every doctor she had found in my Rolodex.  As a Harding, I have an abiding belief in quality doctors and I had many of them: GP, internist, podiatrist, orthopedic surgeon, dentist, diet doctor, five different psychiatrists going back 20+ years, dermatologist, opthamologist and on and on.  Debbie subpoenaed my medical records from every single one of them.  Let no lawyer or TV cop drama lead you to believe that in the face of a federal prosecutor your medical records are confidential - especially your psychiatric records/notes. 

I exploded and insisted Jerry contest these subpoenas.  He flatly refused.  He argued that we needed to pick our battles carefully and in any event, what would they find.  As I knew and was borne out, whatever it was Debbie was looking for turned up nothing, but that was never my issue.  This was about never giving an inch.  Jerry's philosophy turned out to be give in on everything.  Especially when it meant accepting the idea that his personal friend Debbie was out of control.  According to Jerry, everything she did was routine and matter of course.  This was all just following the pattern of any criminal matter.  I never could accept that, although he convinced himself of it fully.

 

 

 

 

OLD MUSINGS IV

Good Riddance to Bart Stupak

 

4/9    First, let me mention where I stand on the issue of abortion.  For many, many years I was a fervent pro-lifer.  I accepted the Ronald Reagan principle that if one is unsure when life begins or even if it is life, then why not opt for the side of life.  That made much sense to me.  I was very vocal about my views and made no apologies for them.  As time went on, however, I began to feel deeply conflicted as to how that position reconciled with my overall libertarian philosophy.  In short, it doesn't.  I can't call myself a libertarian and advocate the state getting that deeply intrusive in the affairs of a woman and her reproductive choices.  So I became ambivalently pro-choice.  And there I stand.

Unlike many who hold the pro-choice position, I do not look down upon pro-lifers as ignorant, Christian, whack jobs.  I absolutely respect that on this most important of issues, people passionately disagree.

So when Democrat Bart Stupak made the issue of federal funding for abortion the linchpin for his support of health care reform I could appreciate his passion.  I did not, however, appreciate his logic.  Both the Senate and House bills will result in reducing long-term the availability of abortions in this country.  Of that there can be no doubt.  Barack Obama will be the first Democratic President since 1973 to curtail a woman's right to seek an abortion, during his term.  And with his acquiescence.  It's really astonishing when you stop and think about it.  But, Rep. Stupak disagreed and found language in there that, he believed, said the opposite. 

As an opponent of this health care legislation I was glad for whatever reason that it appeared, for a time, that Stupak and his caucus would scuttle this.  When he said on TV over and over that he and his group could not, in any way, support the Senate language in the bill they were voting on, I took him at his word and respected his commitment to an issue he clearly believes in.

But then the pressure became too great.  It would be one thing if he announced he changed his view on abortion or that he misread the language and after having it properly explained to him,  he now saw its restrictions clearly.  But no.  He held up this bill for weeks on a principled argument and then at the last second caved on what he has said, is a life and death issue.  It's beyond sickening.  

As I say, I am both pro-choice and against this new law.  I hope these states succed in their fight to overturn it.  A mandate like this will find no end once upheld.  The overreaching power of the federal government will become unlimited and court sanctioned to boot.  John Boehner is not far off the mark when he speaks of this being the apocalypse. 

And I applaud all those who fought it.  But Bart Stupak supported it; with the exception of the abortion language, which never really seemed to say what he claimed it was saying.  I could find a reason to applaud his conviction in any of these things.  If he really believed this law was the answer to the nation's health care crisis, OK I could respect his view.  If he opposed it because it would expand abortions, again I would disagree but I respect his passion.  But he clearly believes in nothing at the end of the day.  An Executive Order, if challenged in court, falls when weighed against the legislation itslef.  It's nonsensical to argue otherwise.  And he knows that.

It's hard to fathom a less principled person or a worse representative of his constituents.  The people in his district overwhelmingly opposed this bill and are pro-life.  He's a sell-out no matter how you look at this.  Don't believe me?  I guarantee you that whomever takes his place - Democrat or Republican - will be opposed to this law and a very hard pro-lifer. 

So I say, good riddance to Bart Stupak and his finger in the wind principles.  He will not be missed and his actions (regardless of what he says, he was chased out of this race) will be a healthy warning to others for many years to come.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rudy's Right (although probably for the wrong reasons)

4/7    The word that comes to mind this morning to describe President Obama's new nuclear strategy is wooly headed.   While I am somewhat grateful to have a president who can actually pronounce the word nuclear correctly in outlining his policy, it doesn't compensate for a naive approach to the state of our world. 

With North Korea already in possession of nuclear weapons - and no conventional way to stop them from attacking south - and Iran poised to begin production of sufficient fissionable material to create a bomb, this hardly seems the time to me for a 21st Century version of the freeze movement. 

His policy appears to be: no new nuclear weapons, no new development, no new testing and no nuclear response to chemical or biological attack.  There is some veiled, mushy language regarding rogue states that don't comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (see Iran) but it's too weak to scare anyone.  Especially when the thrust of this new policy is to unilaterally curtail any advantages we possess.

I am not opposed to arms reduction - never have been.  While conservatives blasted Nixon, Ford, Carter & Reagan for negotiating verifiable reductions, I supported those talks, albeit with the doveryai no proveryai caveat.  But never for a second (well maybe one, at Reykjavik) did the U.S. lose its nerve and commitment to retaining and using nuclear weapons.  Now the Obama Administration has given rogue states and international terrorist groups a road map as to what they can and cannot do to us and our interests before we'll considering unsheathing the red button.   Do we really want to broadcast what precisely you have to do to piss us off sufficiently for us to issue launch codes?  Or would it be better to leave the muscular threat out there and leave our adversaries uncertain and thereby wary and off-balance?  I suggest the latter.  It's been an effective deterrent for 65 years.

I believe that it may indeed be necessary to use nuclear weapons to prevent Iran's ascension to the nuclear table.  Conventional airstrikes, even with heavy duty Israeli bunker busters, will not do the job.  Is the United States, with its strategic national interests and its allies prepared for a nuclear Iran coupled with $150 a barrel oil to fund its military?  I don't think so.  Rather than spending time thinking of new ways to tell the world we love it, we should be thinking of ways to inform Iran, North Korea and the chief propagator of worldwide Islamic fundamentalism, Saudi Arabia, that they should fear the hell out of us.   I'm not advocating a George W. Bush policy of invading everything and everywhere when we deem it necessary.  But history will not look kindly on a United States that sat back and watched Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cut ribbons at nuclear silos all over Iran.

Malcolm Smith's Fate

3/25    Well if you didn't know State Senator Malcolm Smith's legal fate before, he just sealed it yesterday.  He announced that he has hired Gerald Shargel as his criminal defense attorney.  Uh-oh!  Smith - and Congressman Meeks - are being investigated by New York State but more importantly by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District.  I can hear in my head now how the discussions went between Smith and Shargel.  Shargel tells him that these charges are outrageous.  I'm sure he told him that he knows the prosecutor in the matter and has a great working relationship with him/her.  Further, Shargel told Smith that he had a novel legal idea as to how to approach this whole thing.  Jerry would have been all full of zeal and ardor to take this matter on.

Fast forward six/nine/twelve months from now.  Shargel is tired and weary of this case.  It's a loser from day one.   By this point he's having trouble getting Smith to pay him the hundreds and hundreds of thousands he says he's owed.   Sure, he'll negotiate something with the State that will resolve their investigation without any criminal prosecution and certainly no prison time.  I could do that.  But the Feds, ah that's a different matter.  Jerry will start wheeling out the excuses why nothing can be done to save poor Sen. Smith.  First, he'll tell Sen. Smith that he -Jerry- is thrilled to try this case, "I live in the courtroom, that's what I do," he'll say.  Then Jerry will begin qualifying that statement and explain, alas, that it's the Feds.  See how he got him off with nothing from the State, he'll ask.  Well that can't happen with the Feds.  Then, he will lament how if only this matter had been in the Eastern District instead of the Southern District the outcome would have been different. Then he'll explain the Guidelines and how Sen Smith's behavior just ran afoul of the Sentencing Guidelines, the prosecutor had no choice (when Jerry starts rationalizing the Government's behavior, that really rankles).  Jerry will explain that essentially nothing can be done.  And moreover, that nothing could ever have been done.  Jerry will wind up by reiterating that he's happy to try this case notwithstanding that the outcome is horrible.  He'll try and cheer Smith up with stories from past clients how 3 years in Federal prison goes by very fast.  It's nothing, you can do it standing on your head, he'll say.  Then maybe he'll do what he told me to do and fabricate a drug and/or alcohol problem in order to get time off.  

In the end, Malcolm Smith will have a new identity ending with -054.  And Jerry Shargel?  As I said a few weeks ago, he takes these cases in order to bluster at the outset and get the bio profiles in the media.  Then after some time he pleads his client out to a few years.  He'll have pocketed many hundreds of thousands, upped his profile yet again, obtained a lot of free publicity in order to attract the next client and he's sittin pretty.  Where will Malcolm Smith be sitting?  I can't answer that specifically, but it will be somewhere he's going to have to stand up every day at 4:00 PM to be counted by Bureau of Prison guards.  That much we now know for sure since he's hired Gerald Shargel.  Poor Sen. Smith.  If only he had asked me.  I would have told him to hire Bob Morvillo.

WHY WE'RE BROKE

 

3/11    Let me tell you a little story.  When I became President of HDC the corporation's computer system - the various applications which managed our mortgages, contracts, and investments - was on an old WANG platform.  So antiquated was this system that WANG no longer offered any support and spare parts, no longer available, had to be bastardized from complete systems we purchased for the sole purpose of breaking them down for their component parts.  I was determined to bring HDC into the 21st century.

After extensive analysis we reached out to the Oracle Corporation which was very interested in building a fully integrated system for us from scratch.  After months of lengthy negotiations, conducted by our CIO and General Counsel, the final unresolved sticking point required me to deal directly with the Oracle SR VP in charge of the contract.

The last point was my insistence that any cost overruns - not related to add-ons initiated by us - would be borne by Oracle.  I had never negotiated a contract this complex or for this many millions before.  But my simple guiding principle was that we would not pay for any Oracle delay or miscalculation.  The contract's parameters were clear.  The work required was based on Oracle's expertise in estimating manpower and resources required.  Should they estimate wrong, HDC would not be on the hook for that.

After a long session in my office, the Oracle exec said he would have to go back to California and discuss this with their General Counsel.  He explained that Oracle had never signed a contract before that made them liable for cost overruns.  It was always paid for by the customer.  I acknowledged the precedent but assured him we would not proceed unless that was included.  He called a few days later and said that Oracle's GC had agreed and this was indeed precedent setting for them.

That project took a year longer than either Oracle or us had anticipated.  This required their programmers and managers to work longer and for many more to be added to the project.  The result was that when the project concluded the cost had been off by $1,000,000.  Thanks to my insistence of the insertion of that clause, HDC saved one million dollars and we had a state-of-the-art system that lowered costs and increased productivity.

Kudos to me, right?  Yea, but that's not why I am telling you this story.  Last month Robert Gates, testifying before Congress, revealed that DOD had finally canceled their grand plan for a unified department-wide personnel management system.   All the services plus civilians and Reserve and Guard soldiers operate under separate, stand-alone systems for payroll and Human Resources.  It has been the goal of DOD for many years to bring all DOD entities into one unified system.

Gates quipped in acknowledging this failure by saying, "I would say that what we’ve gotten for a half billion dollars is an unpronounceable acronym."  He was referring to the projects name, DIMHRS (Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System).  Secretary Gates misspoke when he made that flippant remark.  DIMHRS has actually cost taxpayers one billion dollars; he was off by half.

And what did DOD get after 12 years and one billion dollars?  Absolutely nothing.  There is not a single line of code that came out of this project that can be transferred to the existing service' systems or to a new program.  How is it possible, even conceivable, that year after year after year DOD, OMB, Congressional appropriations committees allocated millions upon millions for a program that showed no results or hope of succeeding?   And why is the Federal Government the biggest patsy in America when it comes to results-based contracting?

I mention the story at the beginning to demonstrate that even I, a widely condemned political hack, had the foresight and brains to anticipate the obvious. Namely, that without proper initial planning, intense on-going oversight and effective stakeholder coordination on the part of the customer (DOD), the project was doomed to failure.   But hey, I am not singling out DOD. Every Federal department and agency is this incompetent and wasteful, every single one.  Why?  Think about it.  One billion dollars out of the trillions allocated and spent by DOD during this project's twelve year life is a minuscule percentage of its budget.  The reason I rail against Federal spending all the time is for exactly this reason.  There was a time that a billion dollars would have caught someone's attention, no longer apparently.  And while I don't know this as fact, I will guarantee you that the person in charge of this integration at the Pentagon has not been fired, but is still working there.  Can you imagine this type of gross incompetence and mismanagement taking place at the non-boardroom level of corporate America and someone not being fired and blacklisted?  It's the equivalent of making 'Ishtar' or 'Heaven's Gate' in Hollywood.

But here's the really interesting point.  Have you noticed that you never hear of this sort of data migration/integration snafu happening in the private sector?  Does this sort of thing happen when Walmart tries to consolidate its various warehouse tracking functions or Ford tries to manage its worldwide parts system.  I never hear of it.  But the best, most relevant and current example is banks.  Over the last few years - as we know all too well - banks have failed and been subsumed by larger banks.  Each of these banks operates on a unique computer system, incompatible with their merged partner.  Is it even fathomable that a major bank would tell its new customers, "Sorry it's going to take a dozen years for you to use our ATMs."   In 2008 Wells Fargo bought Wachovia.  14 months later they were fully integrated.  JP Morgan Chase bought Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns.  18 months later all are integrated.  Old WaMu customers have full use of Chase products, accounts and equipment.  In most instances the functionality was there a lot sooner.  The Federal government acts and wants us to accept that these things are impossible to achieve.  They're not.  They may be impossible for the corrupt, bloated, wasteful U.S. Government to accomplish, but they are easily attainable goals in the real world.

And best of all there is no penalty for failure.  DOD wastes one billion dollars and no Congressman is calling for heads.  Bob Gates was at DOD for at least 1/3 of that project.  Accountability?  He sloughs it off with a joke.  I'd have more respect for the Government if that billion dollar contract was lost to fraud or corruption at DOD.  At least then someone would have gotten a yacht or jewelry or a small city for that money.  As it stands no one has anything to show for this boondoggle.

What's a really good reason as to why we are 14 trillion dollars in debt?  Why do we have an annual budget deficit of 1.5 trillion dollars?  The example I've given you - and hundreds like it - doesn't explain it all.  But this type of arrogance and waste, coupled with earmarks and pork sure goes a good long way towards explaining it.

 

 

Good Old Jerry

3/9    My laziness prevented me from getting credit for a prediction I meant to make about 4 weeks ago.  I was going to post that the Letterman blackmailer - represented by my former attorney Gerald Shargel - would soon cop a plea.

How did I know this?  Because it's standard Shargel.  He makes a huge splash - for himself - with accompanying profiles, declaring his firm stand that this will go all the way and then his client cops a plea and winds up in prison.  Who benefited?  Jerry of course.  His client was a blackmailer.   This could have and should have been handled quietly and quickly early on.  Doing so however would have deprived Jerry of the profiles and all the TV interviews that accompanied such a high profile case.  And his client?  He now owes Shargel a fortune because this went on for months and months longer than it ever should have with Mr. Halderman paying the tab. 

For me, Jerry was all fight and bravado at the beginning.  As time wore on and the money was depleted he said what he said publicly today in the Letterman case, "I was very excited about the defense," as he threw in the towel happily.  It's now over for him. 

I have no doubt Jerry spoke comforting words to Halderman at the end.  Just as he told Mr. Halderman that his novel legal approach of blackmail not really being blackmail stood a good chance at the beginning.  So now Mr. Halderman is shuffled off to prison and Jerry cashes his checks.  Could Mr. Halderman have gotten this same six month deal back in September?  I have no doubt.  But then we would have missed the endless Shargel profiles that fuel more clients who will be encouraged to fight.  That is before they plead.

Is Jerry a good attorney?  He can be.  But only for the very, very deep pocketed.  He's your greatest ally if you can go the distance financially.  Otherwise you're just along for the Shargel P.R. ride until you're bled dry, he loses interest and the plea is your only option. 

 

More and More of the Same

3/5    By now you've heard that a 17yo girl was murdered in San Diego by a man who was a registered sex offender.  All over cable TV and talk radio there are calls for tougher regulations on released sex offenders.  I am uniquely qualified to explain to you why these calls, if heeded, will have the exact opposite effect their sponsors are hoping for and more than that, how these same advocates contributed to this girl's death.

First, let's be clear on some facts in this case.  He brutally raped and beat up a 13yo girl in 2000.  The judge in that case, ignoring the psychiatrists report which said clearly that he was a serious predator, sentenced him to the lowest end of the range - namely, five years.  Outrage number one is directed at this judge who would sentence someone who raped a 13yo to five years.  But I have heard not a word of condemnation towards this judge.  Next, he is released from prison and registered a Level 3 sex offender, the most predatory and dangerous.  He reports his residence to the local authorities and subsequently lives elsewhere without notifying law enforcement.  Commentators and - if John Walsh is to be believed - President Obama want to see tougher laws as a result of this girl's death.

Now let's be clear.  Assuming he did this crime - and possibly others - he is a horrible, terrible person who should have the maximum punishment leveled at him.  No argument from me on that.  And if he did this crime than he is solely responsible for it at the end of the day.  But that's not enough in light of all this anger and outrage and calls for further abridgment of civil liberties.  It's equally important to see what allowed him to be able to do this.  And that is where from my experience I draw different conclusions than most and lay the blame squarely on the advocates for more and tougher regulations.  They permitted this to happen as surely as if they drove this guy to the park that night of the murder.  Tough accusation?  I'll show you why it's not made frivolously and why I am uniquely qualified to make it.

As a Level 3 sex offender law enforcement has an obligation under the law to keep a close eye on this guy and to make sure the community is safe; so goes the thinking behind these levels.  But as crazed advocates and the media demand that more and more crimes be labeled "sex offenses" and as more and more judges behave with complete reckless abandon - handing out Level 3 designations on minor offenses to be appear tough and out of cowardice should some Level 1 re-offend - more and more of law enforcement ignore the level distinction. 

It's no secret to the cops who handle these matters that the system is nuts.  They know that many Level 2s and Level 3s committed relatively minor offenses.  And as more crimes are included in this designation it waters down the effect on the most serious.  Originally, when the idea of registering human beings was proposed, it was supposed to be for the worst of the worst.  As time went on, legislatures threw more and more crimes into the pot.  The craziness and the fear go hand in hand.  The advocates get the legislatures to add more and more categories and then naturally the number of sex offenders goes up, and then the media goes insane because we have nearly 1 million registered sex offenders in this country.  Well, you can add enough crimes and offenses to the mix that we can have a nation with nearly 100% sex offenders.  As I have said before, in some states you can be a registered sex offender for public urination.  On TV yesterday morning John Walsh seemed to suggest that was just fine.  

As more and more people are designated sex offenders for non-contact crimes - and further, they are designated 2s and 3s - naturally law enforcement can't monitor 1 million people.   Especially when the judges have made such a mess of this as to make the levels meaningless to cops.

I first learned of this case earlier this week on Good Morning America.  Robin Roberts was interviewing the Exec Dir of the Center for Missing and Exploited Children.  "What are we going to do about this?  Self reporting is crazy," she said.  We?  Isn't she pretending to me a morning journalist?  We?  It got worse.  She carried on so, it actually made George Stephanopolous nervous.  It's one thing when Bill O'Reilly goes on his screed about, "we gotta do something about the kids," but when ABC News pretend journalists do it, that's just tough to watch.  But she wasn't done.  She had on John Walsh the next morning.  Instead of being treated like a guy who has cashed in on his dead kid for the better part of two decades she treated him like Jonas Salk.  It was sickening to watch how she slobbered all over him.  She then repeated, "what are we going to do?" 

The fascinating thing to me in each interview was how each guest attempted to make the point that the judges aren't behaving responsibly in assigning these levels and that this was a cause of what happened in San Diego.  But Robin Roberts over talked them each time in pouring out her concern for "the children."  Instead of actually having a useful discussion, which was where they were leading her, she opted for maudlin sensationalism.  

Instead of focusing on the worst of the worst, what we will get out of this is more useless federal involvement, more federal money to pay for cops to monitor more and more wrongly assigned people, and more and more categories of crimes included to make this all self-perpetuating in its total ineffectiveness.

The news media and popular entertainment in general is blameworthy as well.  Just this past week I counted seven TV dramas that had sex offenders as main or secondary plot points to the episode.  The NY Times attempts to write a thoughtful article on prison overcrowding and budget cuts.  It degenerates into a panic piece about a sex offender who was released - and hasn't done anything!!!  If I were the average Jane or Joe sitting at home, I am sure I too would be completely freaked out that the nation is being overwhelmed by zombie sex offenders from the coverage this topic gets. 

Judge Jeffrey Cohen assigned me as a Level 3 sex offender.  My crime was possessing 11 images.  Nothing more than that was ever proven or for that matter even alleged.  And yet I am as great a risk to society as the guy in San Diego who raped and beat up a 13 year old girl.  I pose the same risk and law enforcement should devote the same resources to each of us.  That's why that girl is dead.

It is not I - and others advocating genuine reform - who placed that girl in danger.  It's the Bill O'Reillys, the Nancy Graces, the Sean Hannitys, the so-called children's advocates, the NY Times and the rest of the braying mob that made it impossible for anyone to check on what he was doing out there in California.  More laws, more regulations, more ankle bracelets, more communities under bridges will all guarantee that the worst of the worst remain hidden.  All so that these advocates can feel good about themselves.

 

Analysts, Consultants & Strategists

3/5    I've got this real serious pet peeve.  It was rekindled last night while watching the local news.

You know how you watch the news, often cable news, and the anchor will introduce someone as a Democratic political strategist or a Republican consultant or a Dem. or Rep. analyst.  Well prior to 1998 I assumed, as I guess you do, that these people were legit.  I believed that if a major news network like CNN, MSNBC or FOX had someone on claiming to be one of those things, that they in fact actually were.

When you hear someone is a political strategist or consultant with a major party label before his/her name, you'd think that by the very definition this person had/has clients.  Some candidate or party, past or present, has paid this person for their keen insight or strategic acumen.  In many cases you'd be wrong.

I'm a fairly savvy guy as it relates to NYS and national politics.  So before 1998 when I saw one of these people on-air that I had never heard of, I chalked it up to the fact that they must be a consultant in the West or Mid-West handling elected officials in those states.  Then one afternoon I'm watching CNN and the anchor introduces Pete Snyder as a Republican strategist.  Well I knew Pete Snyder, he was a Frank Luntz employee and no strategist by any means.  He and Luntz had recently had a falling out.  While he was still on the air, I called Frank and told him to put on CNN.  Frank Luntz and I were good friends back then.

Luntz was furious.  He and I both marveled at how this guy had: a) gotten himself on the air and; b) convinced them that he had the bona fides to comment on anything.  It was after that when I started to scrutinize these guest commentators.  I would run internet searches trying to find out who their clients were.  More often than not the only web references were as it regarded their TV appearances, not any paying clients.

A number of Rudy alumni popped up on TV after his term as analysts and consultants.  One press person, who mostly put together the daily press clips, was all over TV and eventually landed a West coast radio show as a commentator.  His junior speechwriter, a nice kid named John Avlon, wound up commenting on all sorts of things and writing a book.  The thing you need to know about Rudy speechwriters, as opposed to say a Reagan speechwriter, is that Rudy never used their speeches.  They would meet and work for weeks on major addresses and then Rudy would wing it.  So having your resume burnished with "Giuliani Speechwriter," never really meant a whole hell of a lot.

But why am I mentioning this today?  Last night I am watching local FOX news.  The lead story is the implosion of David Paterson.  Within one minute of the broadcast starting, the anchor, Ernie Anastos, turns to introduce Mike Paul, a crisis management expert, for his analysis.  Mr. Paul spoke some meaningless nonsense and predicted Paterson may not last till the weekend. 

I was shocked and bemused.  Who is Mike Paul?  He's the fellow who took my job at EDC after I left to become President of HDC.  Mike Paul knows as much about what's going on in Harlem politics or on the 2nd floor in Albany right now as I do, which is to say nothing.  And yet, there he is with the FOX imprimatur.  Is he a crisis management expert?  He must be, FOX just said so!  Utter craziness.  And yet the public has no idea.  I know the guy is a fraud, but does the public?  Of course not.

A little background on this charlatan.  I was Executive VP of Corporate Communications at EDC.  When I announced my departure Charlie Millard dutifully called Cristyne Lategano (CFL) to let her know there was a vacancy.  I was pushing my deputy as my replacement, Bernadette O'Leary.  Charlie agreed with that.  But Cristyne, as was her way, 'suggested' a candidate to Charlie.  That was what Charlie and I were fearing. 

CFL was famous, not only for these "suggestions," which were really orders, but she was renown for her complete lack of ability to spot talent.  She would foist the most incompetent people on Commissioners or City Hall.  Commissioners lived in utter terror of her personnel "suggestions."  She was deeply put-off by smart, competent people and relished the company of sycophantic light-weights.  What these job candidates all had in common was their total loyalty to her, not Rudy.

So when she told me that my replacement was a guy named Mike Paul I asked two questions of her.  First, what was his Rudy nexus - how had he earned his way in?  Second, what was his experience?  His experience was that he claimed to run his own P.R. company.  His Rudy connection was through CFL.  Apparently, early every morning this guy would scour the internet for interesting news stories and forward them to CFL.  She seemed to find this incredibly useful and thereby deserving of one of the top agency jobs. 

I did some research and no one had ever heard of his firm.  Bear in mind I worked at a P.R. firm for nearly 3 years before City Hall and had some contacts.  He claimed to represent some rap stars, but that wasn't totally verifiable either.  It became very clear to me that he was flat broke as he insisted on starting work even before I had left.  I found that incredibly strange.  For two weeks he sat in a temporary office just waiting for me to leave.  It was important that he got on the payroll right away and receive benefits.   

What was his tenure?  He lasted a few months before resigning under fire and being replaced by my former deputy.  He had gotten into some drunken brawl at Asia de Cuba.  He kept insisting they give him a table and was screaming he worked for the Mayor.  He was forced to resign when it came to light that he had fraudulently applied for and received an EDC Amex card.  Only the President of EDC had a credit card and when Mike Paul was rebuffed in his request for one from EDC staff, he got Amex to issue him one claiming EDC approved and guaranteed it. 

Now here we are more than a decade later and this Mike Paul is on TV with the same company name claiming to be a crisis management expert.  Is it possible in a decade he has turned himself around and now runs a profitable, thriving, legitimate business?  It's possible, but the chances of it are zero.

So I'm back to where I started.  Analysts, experts, consultants all over television whose sole credential for appearing is that they're on television.  Am I a Republican strategist/consultant/analyst?  Sure, why not?  I have a website, you're reading me right now, aren't you?  I just hope that at least my readers, if not the larger public,  will view these guest analysts with just a bit more skepticism in the future.

 

 

 

 

Equal Justice?  We'll See.

2/23    The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Carr v. U.S.  Nominally it's a case about a sex offender challenging his punishment for violating a federal law known as SORNA.  More than that however, it is a test as to whether equal justice, separation of powers and the very foundation of constitutional law still exists in this country even for those convicted of crimes we really abhor.

SORNA - The Sex Offender Registration Notification Act - is part of the larger Adam Walsh Act that seeks to nationalize sex offender registration.  When it was passed in 2006 and became effective in 2007 it mandated that anyone who had EVER been convicted of a crime under its provisions would be covered by this act.

Imagine if your state, working to get tough with drunk drivers, passed a new law that said anyone EVER convicted of drunk driving - going back to the first statute criminalizing it - would now ____ (fill in the blank).  Maybe lose their car, have license plates that identified them as a drunk driver, not be allowed to have children in the car when they drove, pay much higher registration fees - whatever.  Even if your crime was committed 25 years ago and you had a great driving record since then.  Do you think that would pass court muster?  

What SORNA does is require that anyone who has ever been convicted of a certain series of crimes be subject to its registration provisions and penalties.  Even if your crime was committed 15 years before the Act was written.  Never in the history of this country has a law like that been upheld by an appellate court.   Until now.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has upheld this clearly ex post facto law.  And now the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of that decision. 

In my own case, I plead, was sentenced and served most of my time before this law was ever enacted.  I asked federal officials in prison repeatedly how this law could possibly apply to me since it was written after my conviction.  I was given universally the same idiotic response.  It applies to me, I was told, because the law says it applies to me.  Which it does.  But that was no answer, of course.  The U.S. Constitution has a rather clear Ex Post Facto Clause.

How could the entire process of plea bargaining function if every plea was easily nullified by future acts of Congress or the legislature.  What if you were serving a 5 year sentence for cocaine possession and the law changed.  Could they apply a much stiffer sentence to you or alter the conditions of your release?  No, the government cannot do that.  Who would ever take a plea deal knowing that nothing they agreed to would be enforceable or totally subject to the whim of the changing legislature and political climate?  I won't even get into the entire 10th Amendment issue surrounding all this.  Why is the federal government involving itself at all in this matter in the first place?

A perfect example illustrating the insanity of the government's action is the drug Ecstasy.  Ten years ago it was perfectly legal to possess and ingest Ecstasy.  Then one day the federal government criminalized it and now you can easily serve 10 years for something you couldn't even be arrested for 10 years earlier.  But what if the legislation criminalizing it had a provision that the DEA and Justice could go back and indict anyone who had ever been arrested with Ecstasy in their possession retroactively.  Do you think in that situation the court would stand for that?  Of course not!

The American people have almost zero understanding of what the states and federal government have done and are doing regarding so called 'Sex Offenders.'  All they know is that TV, talk radio, the news media and their elected officials scare them day and night with the idea that sex offenders are everywhere, can't control themselves and that any minor act leads inevitably to serious hands-on molestation.  None of that is true, but the hysteria surrounding it trumps facts.

The government is civilly committing people based on junk science regarding sex offenses.  Worse yet, there is now way out once you have been committed.  No test to pass or provable mental state or behavior that will get you freed.  Nothing.  You're there essentially for life.

The question is, if the court would never entertain upholding a law like SORNA for drugs, why would it in this instance?  And if it does, is there any end to what the next hysteria du jour will be that justifies nullifying a fundamental tenet of the Constitution. 

Dear readers, you may buy into the Sex Offender bogeyman, but ask yourself if this precedent is the one worth setting that surely and inevitably leads to the end of this constitutional government as we have known it.

 

 

 

 

On My Mind & In the News

2-22    First, let me say that I received a slew of e-mails today asking me my thoughts on Mayor-for-Life Mike's new housing proposal.  Since the plan rests mainly on the shoulders of HDC, people are naturally curious for my reaction.  All I can say today is that I need to read the fine points.  The Times story was not enough for me to determine if it is good for the city and more importantly, if it does long-term harm to HDC's financial stability.  When I read his speech, I will let you know.

Lots of news over the weekend.  Not the most important of the weekend's events but did you see Bernie Kerik, his family and his lawyers on Geraldo last night?  I honestly don't know what to make of that.  On the one hand it was rather manipulative and maudlin.  On the other, it was nice to see that Geraldo is a stand-up guy who sticks by his friends.  He pointed out how Bernie was massively fucked by the judge presiding in his case.  Not merely because he upward departed from the guidelines and the plea agreement.  That's not an everyday occurrence, but it happens.  But apparently there was a pattern of bias in this case.  I agree with Geraldo that the judge just hated Kerik and threw out any notion of fairness and impartiality.  He upward departed because: a) Bernie plead not guilty originally and; b) in the course of pleading not guilty, he wasn't remorseful.  Further - and this truly irritates me - he lashed out at him for having abused his position.  

Now, you may not fully get my outrage on this point.  You may think it perfectly reasonable to throw the book at him because of his former high office.  I receive a lot of anti-Bernie Kerik mail on this site, believe me I know where most of you stand on this.  But what you don't understand - either because you're not a criminal defense lawyer or a felon/defendant (yours truly), is that it is already factored into determining the sentence.

When a Pre-Sentencing Report is written, all the factors (they're called enhancements in the Federal system) surrounding your crime are taken into account and credited against you.  Any abuse of his former position was already factored into the recommended sentence.  The underlying charge alone is based on him having a public office.  Had he accepted free renovations on his apartment as a marine biologist there wouldn't be any crime.  It was his position that made it criminal (if it was) in the first place.  So the judge dinged him for it again and again.  It is a terrible fundamental flaw in the federal system.  Defendants are routinely enhanced or the acceptance of responsibility points awarded to those pleading guilty are yanked away at the last minute because "you're not remorseful enough," based on having previously plead not guilty.

The federal system is so biased towards the prosecution, it rarely serves the interest of a defendant to plead guilty.  The 97% conviction rate in the federal system is almost entirely from people pleading guilty.  It's not because federal prosecutors are so talented, it's because they are ruthless and corrupt; routinely leaking false information or threatening the safety of loved ones should a defendant choose to go to trial.  Sadly, most federal judges are former prosecutors and naturally find this conduct acceptable.  I have praised those judges who single it out for condemnation.  But it happens rarely.

Bernie Kerik did whatever he did.  But I can certainly understand the pressure from your attorneys, your family, your friends, and the press to plead to something that in your heart of hearts you don't feel guilty for.  I've met lots of people who were put into that position.

Just a quick calculation on the 48 month sentence.  In the federal system, unlike the far more generous state system, you get 15% off your sentence for good behavior.  Call that 7 months.  You get 10% of your time in a halfway house, not to exceed 6 months.  Call that 5 months.  He served, I think, 2 months in Valhalla (that time counts).  7+5+2= 14 months.  48-14= 34 months.  Once he goes inside in May, he should be out 34 months later.  I wish him well.  I can only tell him that the time will go faster than he now thinks.

 

2/22   CPAC

What to make of CPAC?  I've been writing for months about the libertarian strain that underpins the anger in this country and in theory, what generated the Tea Party movement.  So it came as no surprise to me that Ron Paul would be the beneficiary and therefore the winner of the straw poll.  Unlike Bill Kristol, who dismissed his win as the product of, "some nice college kids," I think there's more to it.  True, that like the Tea Partiers, the GOP is deeply schismed between those who cheer wildly for Dick Cheney - a libertarians worst enemy - and those who voted for Rep Paul.  But it's the GOP that will have to craft the Obama alternative and its enrollees are hungering for a libertarian message.

So what do they stand for?  I think that question was the sum and substance of Glen Beck's message.  As I have said, you can't win something with nothing.  And while the 2010 and 2012 anger may propel Republicans into control, it can't last without a message - and a positive one at that.  Grass roots Republicans get that their leaders ran amok for eight years with nothing in the end to show for it.  I think the days of voting in lock step for GOP candidates is over.  Karl Rove's permanent robotic majority doesn't exist.  Without a positive, clear message, we will have perhaps decades of see-saw party dominance every 2-4 years. 

What came out of CPAC mostly was that there is no leader of the Republican Party.  They are adrift, notwithstanding that they perceive themselves as on a roll shouting NO to every roll call vote.  Huckabee and Palin didn't show.  Romney is a non-starter for a myriad of reasons.  And Tim Pawlenty?  Is it just me or does that permanent smile plastered on his face give you the creeps too?  As much as I like Ron Paul's message, I would agree he is not the nominee.  So who is it?  Right back where we started; you can't win something with nothing.  I will tell you what should keep GOP leaders up at night - 1964. 

The mainstream majority of the party absolutely did not want "extremist" Barry Goldwater leading the ticket.  Well the grass roots wasn't listening and nominated Goldwater.  Viewed disastrously at the time, we now know it was the precursor to Reagan.  Maybe it's time for the grass roots to ignore Washington and pick itself a candidate; get behind him and work their asses off to the convention.  Someone dynamic, fresh, controversial and articulate.  Any suggestions?

 

Neverending TSA Idiocy

2/18    The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced yesterday that they would begin testing  - not just passengers waiting to board flights, but all airport visitors - for bomb making materials. This technology involves swabbing people's hands and baggage for bomb materiel residue.  So sensitive is this equipment, we were told, that it would even detect nitroglycerin residue from tablets taken by heart patients. 

Unlike security screening which takes place only once you attempt to enter the boarding gates, this procedure will target anyone inside the entire airport complex.  So you might be sitting in Sbarros at the food court eating pizza when a TSA agent will attempt to swab your hands.  Can you say no?  Will they kick you out of the airport for refusing?  We don't know.  But I am not writing this post because of any of those concerns, valid as they may be. 

I will predict here and now that in the long litany of TSA boondoggles, this will be the biggest.  Why?  Let me digress and tell you a little story.

In the last prison I was in, FMC Devens, they instituted a new procedure for anyone wishing to visit inmates.  Apparently, the Federal Bureau of Prisons had spent a fortune purchasing machines that could detect minute traces of illegal drugs on an individual.  The goal was not to prevent drugs from being smuggled in - although that was a planned benefit, the idea was to prevent inmates from consorting with people who use illegal drugs.  I won't go on a rant right now about that aspect, but I could!

This machine would scan you - non-invasively, of course - and print out what illicit drugs it had found on you.  It wasn't designed to x-ray and detect if you were carrying drugs, just if any remained on your hands, somewhat similar to what the TSA is doing.  As I say, the BOP before doing any real testing, spent a lot of money purchasing these machines for its prisons.  The result?  Apparently the machine had an error rate of somewhere between 50-60%, roughly 6 out of 10 scans were false positives.  Every day wives, children, friends were routinely turned away after traveling great distances and being told they had tested positive for cocaine, heroin, pot, etc.  It was the usual BOP waste of money.

My all time favorite story involved the wife of one the mobsters at Devens.  This short 80+ year old Italian woman showed up to visit her mob husband and was turned away for heroin use.  It seems kinda funny until you realize that testing positive put you on a restrict list that prevented you from visiting the inmate for a period of months.  Only a note from a doctor or lab that certified you had been tested for that drug and found negative could you get back on your loved one's visitor list after many weeks. 

After a few months the machines - which we being used daily - were put away and only taken out every 4-6 weeks for a few hours.  It was done just to somehow justify the massive amount of money that the BOP had wasted on these useless machines.  Classic BOP procurement and implementation.  Arrogance and incompetency matched only perhaps by the TSA.

One roommate of mine had his 17yo daughter visit.  She traveled two states to the prison for the first time by herself, without her mother, in order to visit her father (incidentally, the former CFO of Ben & Jerry's).  The machine did its thing and she was informed she had tested positive for cocaine.  They apparently treated her very badly (typical for Devens) and she left crying, never seeing her father and placed on a restrict list.  If you knew the father and the family, there was no way his daughter  was doing drugs of any kind - she was a straight edge kid.

So how is this possible?  The answer is really kind of fascinating.  Moreover, it will show you why this TSA proposal is doomed even before it starts.  Let me digress once more.

When I was a younger man I enjoyed snorting cocaine.  It was a pleasurable drug and I'd recommend it to anyone.  Then as now - I assume - you snorted coke with a rolled-up bill; fifty, hundred, twenty, one, whatever you had.  Now when you were finished, you didn't tear up that hundred or twenty and throw it in the garbage; no, you unrolled it and spent it.  The residue of that drug-filled night remaining on that bill, free to circulate throughout the economy.  What that machine at Devens taught all of us in prison was that our currency is coated with illegal drugs, which we're handling daily and for which we are clueless.  The residue of touching the currency remains on your hands, apparently even after you wash.

Many visitors at Devens had stories of washing with soap and water, hand sanitizers, anything to clean their hands before visiting.  Nothing worked.  False positives were reported all the time at very high rates.  The only thing that worked was waking up, taking a shower, scrubbing hard and then not touching anything without gloves before you reached the prison.  That's what it took to pass this machine.

I know nothing about bombs or bomb making equipment - what goes into it or more importantly what those components might resemble chemically in everyday life.  I am assuring you, dear reader, that this TSA swab process will find things on people's hands transmitted through currency in exactly the same way the useless BOP machines did.  Little old ladies, children, anyone will be subjected to what Janet Napolitano this morning called a "hard pat-down" should they test for something.  There will be constant false positives. 

TSA employees are some of the worst federal employees - stupid, arrogant, poorly educated, drunk with power, and completely incapable of making rational distinctions.  Anyone who has flown during the last 7 years knows exactly of what I am speaking.  The idea of giving law enforcement equipment, capable of seriously disrupting someones life, with the certainty that it will register mainly false positives to these TSA monkeys, to me, is reckless and outrageous behavior on the part of our government.  Just remember when you hear how this program failed, you heard it hear first.

 

Tea For How Many?

 

2/17    The old adage in politics, as with most things, is that you can't win something with nothing.  Up until a few weeks ago I still believed that.  Now, I'm not so sure.

The level of anger and frustration in this country directed at Washington is now apparently unprecedented.  Here are some findings from the latest polls:

1.    Americans, when asked, "Do you believe the Government (federal) tries to do the right thing most of the time," has hit an all time low of 34%.

2.    Most Americans want to see their own representative in Congress replaced. That's never been seen before in polling history.

3.    With only one year in office, most Americans believe Barack Obama doesn't deserve a second term.  Notwithstanding that his approval rating is still a respectable 50%.

4.    20% of Americans are inclined not to fill out the Census because they don't trust the Government to protect the privacy of their information.

5.    70% of Americans are dissatisfied or angry with the way Washington handles the people's business.

6.    58% believe the economic outlook is getting worse, not better.  This, one year into a $750 billion dollar economic stimulus plan.

It would seem that this coalescing of angry voters known as the Tea Party movement would find the electorate ripe for the picking in 2010.  Certainly the Republican Party should be in good shape this year.  Here's the problem though: 1. The Tea Party Movement, besides being a group of angry people, agrees on almost nothing; and 2. The Republican Party, unlike in 1994, has not put forth and appears unwilling to, a positive, specific plan of action should they take back the House or the Senate.  That's the something with nothing adage at work.  Based on the polling, people appear ready to chuck out their elected officials and replace them with Y.  The policies and identity of candidate Y appearing to mean very little.

Pollsters will tell you that these numbers are deceptive and in the end voters don't actually cast their ballot this cavalierly.  In essence, voters are expected to behave responsibly with their franchise.  But here's what I'm sensing out there: people look at Congress and the White House behaving as irresponsibly as they ever have since the Republic's founding and ask themselves, "why am I supposed to be the adult when my leaders are engaged in a mindless free-for-all in D.C.?"

The X factor in this year's election is the Responsibility Factor.  The Government, the parties, elected officials all know that historically voters will calm down by election day and do the rational thing - they will behave responsibly.  But at these levels of voter disgust with Washington, people are less and less inclined to behave rationally.  Now don't get me wrong, I don't think "throw the bums out," is irrational.  In fact, I'm all for it.  But in my lifetime I have never seen white rage anger this intense with Washington.  Notwithstanding Peter Jennings famous comment that the "nation had a fit," in 1994, there was nothing irrational or irresponsible with that Congressional turnover and repudiation of Clintonsim.  The GOP argued and presented a cogent, sane platform that many people embraced and voted for.  The difference this year is that doesn't exist, so voter anger is left unchanneled and unfocused - other than amorphously, "at Washington."

Tea Party people only agree vaguely that Government is too big, taxes are too high, Wall Street is evil and that they believe in liberty and freedom.  Society and especially government don't function on vague pronouncements.  Ideas need to be formed into concrete policies and proposals.  And that's where this Tea Party movement runs to ground.  It is comprised of fervent pro-lifers and ardent pro-choicers.  Tea Party leaders favor drug legalization while others favor harsher penalties because of, "the children."  If Government is too big - and it certainly is - where would they chop? I guarantee you they wouldn't form any consensus.   So of what value is it?  In the long term it is of zero value.  The hard right Tea Partiers will be co-opted by the Republican Party and the hard left will go back to trying to influence Democratic primaries.  Absolutely nothing will come of this.  Excepting, of course, in election year 2010 and possibly 2012. 

And that's unfortunate because I agree with almost all their bumper sticker ravings: Government is too big, it is too intrusive, taxes and spending are way too high.  I'm down with all of that.  Which is the reason why I enrolled as a Republican nearly thirty years ago!!  That was the raison d'etre of the Republican Party.  Make no mistake, the rise of the Tea Party movement is not a reaction to Obama it is a direct response to George W. Bush.  Had Bush governed as a Republican, had he kept any of his campaign promises - besides tax cuts - there never would have been a need for this venting.  All these people would reside happily in the GOP waiting for more spending cuts, less regulation and smaller government.  But Bush grew the Federal Government more than any president in history.  More spending, more programs, more intrusion into state functions, more federal employees.  This is all Bush, not Obama.  Congressional Republicans naturally went along with all this so they are equally culpable for the rise of these Tea Partiers.

Where Fox, the Weekly Standard, National Review and these right wing talk show hosts go wrong is pinning this on Obama.  These people had a home, it was the Republican Party.  The fact that they are out there flailing around is a tremendous failure of GOP leaders for the last dozen years.  What's needed until a vibrant Libertarian Party exists, is wholesale reform of the GOP platform.

But there's a disconnect here that's being missed. When asked this question (so help me this is the exact wording), "Do you believe you've given up enough of your civil liberties in the fight against terrorism or do you need to give up more," an insane 63% of Americans said they need to give up more.  Can you imagine?  In this home of liberty and freedom where the vast, vast majority of people do not trust their government to do the right thing "most of the time," two-thirds want to give up more rights and freedoms to this same government.  They don't trust their government to do something simple like spend their money but they apparently trust them enough to return basic constitutional rights.  How do you explain this?  You can't.  It's a schism deep in the psyche of the current voting public. It's at the core of why the Tea Party movement won't last.  They embody fully this inexplicable contradiction.  They hate the government yet fully embrace the Bush/Cheney agenda on terrorism which are directly at odds with one another.  You can't claim to hate Washington - to mistrust it nearly 100% - and then say you're OK with warrantless wiretaps and the Patriot Act.  You just can't.  It's illogical and makes the speaker absurdly foolish if so claimed.  But that, in a nutshell, is the Tea Party movement. "We hate DC except for the most fundamental abridgment of our liberties."  It simply can't be.

The core of any movement has to be about something.  It's members have to agree on principles, aims, strategies and eventually specific goals.  The Tea Party movement does not fit this definition.  Sure, you can have a big tent but not the size of Wyoming. Something other than hating the federal government - which I'm fine with - has to bind you.  I hope desperately that someone, even a wealthy patron like Perot or Golisano (preferably saner and more ethical) comes in to focus these people and start a national Libertarian Party.  I'd be even happier if my own party, the GOP, would return to its modern Goldwater roots and denounce the Bush years, cleanse itself of permanent government types and present a radical agenda to slash the federal government - not only in size, but in scope.  You can cut the budget by 75% but all the laws currently on the books giving Washington power over our lives remain.  It's the dual pronged attack to slash the budget and restore adherence to the 10th Amendment that is required.  Sadly, I don't see my party doing any of this any time soon.  Not when it looks like, 'Winning Something with Nothing' appears to be a successful slogan for 2010.

 

Brennan is Right

2-12    Obama counter-terrorism official John Brennan is absolutely right.  Sadly, Congressional Democrats and other Obama Administration officials aren't saying the same thing.  He's received the most attention for one line of that USA Today Op-Ed piece, "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."  Opponents claim he's questioning their patriotism and their right to dissent against administration policy.  Unfortunately, the most important line was the one that followed, "Terrorists are not 100-feet tall," Brennan said.

When Osama Bin-laden sent planes into the Twin Towers we pass the Patriot Act, initiate illegal wiretaps, systematize extraordinary rendition, fabricate the hulking behemoth Department of Homeland Security, create the ever more incompetent Transportation Security Administration, launch two wars and routinely start torturing people.  And we still don't have Bin-laden or Mullah Omar!!  Bin-laden flicks his wrist, sends Richard Reid on his way, and we're all removing our shoes at airports.  He waves his other at Europe and we're all measuring out 3 oz of liquid into tiny bottles. 

I have to assume that Bin-laden must be chuckling, during his lengthy dialysis sessions, at how so little effort on his part causes the world - and especially the United States - to upend itself.  There's nothing brave or manly about our actions since 9/11.  Our actions - with the exception of the Afghanistan invasion - were all motivated out of blind panic and fear.  What is the nature of terrorism, whether Islamic or any other variety?  It is simply to cause irrational, unbridled panic.  Have they achieved their goal to the greatest extent possible?  It's inconceivable how they could be doing any better.  They do nothing that wasn't completely preventable and we rewrite our Constitution.  9/11 was not nothing.  I was here and dealt with the aftermath, so no lectures please from people who've never stepped foot in NYC.  But had our Government done the job it was supposed to do with the then available tools it had, none of this would have happened in the first place.  More and more bad, incompetent government is not the answer to fixing the problem of bloated incompetence.

I get completely that from the Congressional standpoint more is always better.  More money, more government, more laws, more bureaucrats.  More, more, more.  But as Kit Bond - wrong on the Brennan issue - stated yesterday, maybe it's time to rethink DHS.  It has shocked me for years that the Democrats have not torn asunder this monstrosity.  At a bare minimum I would have thought that a Democratic majority or a new Democratic President would at least have changed the name.  Homeland Security has always sounded to me like I live in some pre-invasion Austria or Czechoslovakia replete with quisling cabinet minsters heading up a ministry called Homeland Security, ready to hand over the country to soon to be invading Nazi forces.  The name itself is so fascistic, so Hitlerian that I have never stopped being stupefied that Democrats and libertarian Republicans weren't wincing since the first time George Bush said it.  And the best part is that this NKVD rival isn't even good at being Big Brother.  What they're great at is expansion.  Tens of billions are being spent to create giant buildings, bunkers and campuses to house all these new DHS bureaucrats.  Again, all a reaction to Bin-laden sitting in a cave somewhere in Pakistan.  In the history of our country, no enemy has been this weak and yet wrecked more damage on us.

Our reaction to it has been irrational, illogical and wholly political.  The center of world terrorism does not emanate from a cave in Pakistan.  The epicenter of Islamic radical hate America, destroy the West, fundamentalism is in Riyadh.  The appropriate action after 9/11 was always to simultaneously invade Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.  Clean out the place and install a reform, moderate Prince on the throne who will not export radical Wahhabism to the rest of the world.  Saudi Arabia, like Austria, puts forward the canard that they "were the first victims."  It's not coincidence that most 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.  No coincidence that most of the mosques they found sanctuary in prior were funded by the Saudi Govt.  The money trail to these people was established within days.  It's also surely no coincidence that Prince Bandar was sitting on the Truman balcony less than 72 hours after 9/11.  The Saudis were sure that their time was up and we'd be coming for them.  They knew that even though we didn't.  They were totally sweating bullets during the first few days after 9/11.  But no, all these pieces were simply ignored.  How hard would it have been to invade and conquer the Kingdom?  Less than 3 days from start to finish.  The world would be a safer, more democratic place and we'd have a ton of oil to compensate us for September 11th.  

So what's the upshot of all this?  Dismember DHS, try these terrorists in civilian courts, stop scaring the public with fear and these outlandish cost estimates for trial security.  We've indicted, tried and convicted plenty of terrorists in U.S. civilian courts and there hasn't been a single event surrounding the trials.  Most importantly, heed John Brennan's words.  They are not 100 feet tall.  They are just a rag tag band of Muslim nut jobs who we've elevated to the status of Supermen - Uber Menschen in the German.  Come back to reality and realize that this panic and fear only provides them with victory after victory.  Bin-laden can't defeat us, only we can do that.  And so far we're doing a hell of a job.

 

 

 

 

Don't Forget the Brother

2-11    A 13 count federal indictment was unsealed against NYC  Councilmember Larry Seabrook.  I think it's fair to say that the chattering classes have known for some time that he would be indicted, it was only a matter of when.  I can add only one piece to this story from my own first-hand experience.  Councilmember Seabrook's brother, Oliver, runs one of two major federal halfway houses in the city.  They are both owned by the private GEO Corp. and run under a very lucrative contract with the Federal Bureau of Prisons.  Oliver Seabrook has run both houses at some point and last I knew ran the one at 2534 Creston Ave in the Bronx. I was at that halfway house for 6 months.  Oliver Seabrook was the definition of a shady guy.  He routinely abused his position as administrator to shake down residents for money.  Presumably he did it to benefit the GEO Corp., but extorting funds took place just the same. 

He regularly told residents the day before they were to leave and return home that unless they coughed up additional sums, he would not permit them to leave.  This is of course highly illegal.  An administrator of a halfway house cannot extend your stay once your time there is up, only a federal judge can do that.  But you knew that if he were to trump up some charge against you, even the night before you were scheduled to leave, he could have the Marshals pick you up and return you to prison.  I'd seen him do it. 

When he did this to me 10 hours before I was scheduled to leave I told him I would not pay.  He threatened me - screaming, spitting and slamming the table - that I would be sent back to prison.  I still told him calmly that I would not pay monies I did not owe.  And if these sums were legit, I said, why was I finding out about them 10 hours before I was leaving.  My calm demeanor made him go apoplectic.  I have never seen another human being behave the way he did that night.  Constantly pounding the table, screaming at me only centimeters from my face.  He then threatened to hit me.  This was said in front of a member of his staff (who was fired a few days later I heard).  Now Oliver Seabrook is a tiny man, he's probably 5'8 and 135 lbs.  The fact that I might get into a fight didn't scare me, I'd been in prison for 5 years. 

The thing that scared the shit out of me was that this guy, charged with being responsible for the well being of 160 people, was actually going to assault me for $165.00.  This was right after he made me pay $1200 in order to leave, or so I believed.  And if he did hit me and I did something back - which would have been stupid - I would absolutely be on my way back to prison.  It was the most surreal moments of my life.  At one point he had my discharge papers in his hand and started to tear them up.  Again, at 6:30 the next morning legally he had to let me leave regardless of what I owed him.  I knew that rationally.  There was no way he could keep me without a judge's order.  But you become conditioned to the cruelties of prison; the abuse and constant violation of your rights. 

So as he started to tear them up I realized I had better try and calm him down.  I said calmly, "why are you being so aggressive?"  Not having scored an 1100 on his SATs, he said to me, "Aggressive means being violent - hitting you.  And I haven't done that, Yet!"   I told him I'd be happy to examine this matter another time when all this pressure didn't exist.  After more pounding of the table, he screamed at the top of his lungs for me to get out and wait outside.  He said if I were in his presence for another minute he didn't know what he would do.

When I came back he had a document prepared stating that I would owe GEO Corp. $165.  I paused to sign it.   He threatened me again. On the one hand, no one on Earth could make that document enforceable since it was signed under such incredible duress.  On the other hand I didn't like signing it because I didn't owe the money.  But I signed it just to get my papers so I could leave the next morning and be out of that asylum.

I have never in my life met anyone as crazy as Oliver Seabrook who was still functional.  I've met plenty of totally whacked out people who were non-functional (can't eat, can't dress, can't manage the rigors of daily life).  But I had never met anyone who was that nuts and still functioned independently.  His rambling incoherent lectures to the residents every Wednesday night were legendary.   His comments and references to the female residents were more strange, bordering on creepy.

I don't believe where there's smoke there's always fire.  My case is certainly proof of that.  But if Oliver Seabrook is not somehow hooked into the financial shenanigans of his brother, I'll eat my hat.

Lastly, let me just comment once again on the utter joke that is NYC's Department of Investigation.  Moreover, let me say, yet again, what an outrage it is that the NYC press gives it a never ending free pass.

The not-for-profit organization at the heart of the Seabrook matter was investigated by the City in 2006.  Improprieties were found, serious ones.  And yet DOI did nothing - didn't even seem to know about it.  Only after the U.S. Attorney's Office launched a full investigation into Council practices regarding the awarding of member items did DOI glom onto their investigation as they always do.  This notion of a "joint" anything by DOI with either the State or Feds is always laughable.  The State and Feds roll their collective eyes at DOI's incompetence and permits them to make these "joint" claims just to keep peace with the City.  Ask any State or Federal investigator if they feel their investigation was aided in any way by DOI and you'll receive chortles as a response.  The NYC media never questions how DOI comes late to every party and then takes credit for others' work.  They have the freest pass of any City agency.  I've just never understood why.  Everyone else is left to undercover the very corruption they claim is their rasion d'etre and yet it actually occurs only once in a blue moon. 

The Most Loathsome Man in New York City

Let Them Eat Bonuses

2/8    A brief history lesson.  For most of the history of this country the accumulation of great wealth was viewed askance.  The American dream of bettering yourself, having a home and family, leaving your children something tangible, made up, for the most part, our cultural ethos.   What did not factor in was a vast fortune earned nobly, or worse at the expense of others.  It is only a recent phenomenon in this country - generally post War (what's good for General Motors...) - that people want to have the riches of Midas and moreover, admire those who do.  Rockefeller, Carnegie, Frick, Fisk, Gould etc., were all men despised in their time.  Not only by their peers - who certainly had cause to hate them - but by the vast majority of Americans.  It is a distinctly European notion, not American, that we aspire to join the noble classes.  Or, more importantly for this post, that we pay deference to their class and rank.  

Now along comes our Mayor.  Not content to be the richest man in our City.  Not satisfied to be the most powerful man amongst us.  Oh no, he now seeks to turn back the values of this city and country to those of the 19th Century and the Industrial Revolution.

When the MTA raises the fare on subways, buses and commuter railways, the Mayor says - as my grandmother would say - "nicht ein wort," not one word.  He feels no urgency to speak up about a matter that affects the lives of millions of New Yorkers, particularly during the greatest economic downturn since the Depression.  More galling in fact since he controls a healthy number of votes on the MTA Board that would permit him to influence the debate if not the actual outcome.  But when Washington proposes to tax banks and bankers Lord Governor Bloomberg tells the lowly working classes - the municipal serfs - that they should rally, literally, in support of Goldman Sachs, Chase, Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon.  He tells us how grateful we should be that these scoundrels and villains deign to live and work among us.  That they, not us, are the lifeblood of this city.  

Can anyone in modern memory recall such an asinine "let them eat cake" comment from an elected official to his constituents?  He really believes that Raoul, the immigrant, minimum wage earning, dishwasher or Laverne, the hospital aide from Jamaica, should go to D.C. to protest the imposition of a tax on Mr. Dimon's 17 million dollar bonus or Mr. Blankfein's more modest 9 million.  When Lloyd Blankfein says that he's doing "God's work" at Goldman Sachs, I don't get upset.  I merely think he's delusional, a rather pitiable man and someone whose values went astray a long time ago.  Further, I am not a Goldman shareholder or employee so I don't have much to get mad at him about regarding his distorted view of the world and himself.  But when the chief elected official of our city tells us that we peasants - starving, homeless and sick - need to rally on behalf of the fat, villainous, greedy noblemen, it really is Dickensian in it's disassociation from reality and view of the world.

I have told you on this site almost since the first day that Mayor-for-Life Mike hates you.  He is revolted by your presence, his daily requirement to mingle among you and this pesky democratic process. He truly believes that he is doing you a favor by governing you and now will punish you in every way possible for his humiliatingly narrow $100+ million re-election.

Every day and in every way he and his mayoralty remind me of the words of Marshal Petain to the French people upon announcing the armistice in 1940, "I give to the people of France the gift of myself."   One was semi-senile, the other is Napoleonic and deluded.  They share however a sadly misplaced notion as to where their loyalty should reside.

Walking Around Money

One of the chief arguments among the citizenry for his election back in 2002  was that billionaires are incorruptible.  What we have learned lately is that the oft neglected counterargument is equally true.  He might not be corruptible by the system but he might just become the greatest corrupter of the system.

Just as one joint of illegal marijuana probably wont get you in any trouble while 100 lbs most certainly would, a few thousand dollars of election day walking around money - an illegal practice - won't attract much attention or influence the outcome greatly, while $700,000 of walking around money is fantastically illegal and corrupting.  Walking around money for those of you uninitiated in election day politics, is cash handed out to supporters, party machines and others to dispense in order to pull the vote in particular precincts.  The NY Post learned that Bloomberg personally wrote checks to a shell company totaling $700K just prior to the election.  That cash can have been for nothing else but walking around money.  He now says he had no idea to whom or for what he spent this money.  The fear with Bloomberg is not that the system will corrupt him, the nightmare is how out sized his corrupting influence is on the system.

How About a Little Credit?

While the Daily News is taking credit for revealing that CompStat figures have routinely been skewed, let us just step back a moment and remember who it was who first broke this story.  You'll recall that over a year ago I published a post on here recalling what Tony Carbonetti had told me regarding the CompStat murder stats under Giuliani.  He told me flatly that they were routinely fudged in order to keep year over year numbers down.  I received many skeptical e-mails at the time challenging my post.  Now we learn that this was even more routine than I was relaying.  

Precinct Commanders, fearful of their Inquisition-like CompStat grilling at 1 Police Plaza, would hold back entering citizen complaints until the new year so as to push them to the next year's CompStat figures.  One former Commander in the Daily News this weekend specifically referred to his time during the Giuliani years when recounting this story.  

I have no doubt whatever that this practice has continued and flourished during the Bloomberg years, as the only positive message he has had have been his crime stats. I always suspected - that in an administration that in my view has had few successes - their consistently positive crime numbers seemed aberrational.  Let's just remember you heard it here first.

 

Bring in the Goons

It was one thing when Howard Wolfson was behaving like a boorish, slovenly, ill mannered blow hard for private dollars.  People are entitled to hire whomever they want, no matter how offensive they may be.  But now we're all expected to pay for his swinishness?  

Mayor-for-Life Mike has hired Wolfson, late of his re-election campaign, as Counselor to the Mayor at a cost of $200K a year.  What that something is has yet to be determined.  Policy, communications, new initiatives are all possible options according to the Mayor. As Counselor, think more Luca Brasi than Tom Hagen. 

His real role is to behave as obnoxiously as possible towards anyone who disagrees with Mayor-for-Life Mike so that His Grace can aw shucks and shrug when asked about his aide's outlandish and offensive comments at Blue Room press conferences.  All this is made possible of course by the recent 'bonus' Wolfson received from the campaign in the amount of $500,000.   His Grace charitably subsidizes his aides' service to the city by funneling them huge bonuses every 4 years after his campaign.  This is supposed to tide them over until they finish city service whereupon they receive million dollar contracts at Bloomberg, LLP overseen naturally by former deputy mayor Dan Doctoroff who has demonstrated this cycle nicely for us.  I'm a capitalist, so God bless em.  I just don't think any of this passes even the slightest conflict of interest smell test. But we're all supposed to be grateful for this because His Grace has deigned to give us four more years of his attention & expertise.  

Mayor-for-Life Mike's new initiatives according to his State of the City speech are getting rid of guns in American cities and solving the nation's illegal immigration problem.  Again, you all re-elected him why? Was it to solve Texas's and Missouri's problems or ours?  Wasn't he supposed to prevent the record high unemployment we are experiencing in NYC?  Wasn't his managerial magic supposed to prevent the layoffs he announced as unavoidable last week?  Wasn't it supposed to improve the schools that he now seems intent on closing?  It couldn't be improving mass transit since he abandoned that 8 years ago, with the exception of his tunnel to nowhere.

It would seem to me that what the Rebellion has been saying to his Empire low these many years has come to pass quite openly.  He has no agenda other than perpetuating himself in office.  That is now evidenced by the fact that we have a senior City Hall official whose sole function is to attack His Grace's critics.  When despots become so fearful of their critics that they begin to adopt tactics such as these, they have finally announced that even they aren't going to pretend they stand for anything anymore.  All of this easily makes Mike Bloomberg the most loathsome man in New York City.

 

 

 

 

All Eyes On The GOP

1-27    The conventional wisdom holds that all attention is now focused on the make or break speech to be delivered by the President at tonight's State of the Union as a meaningful event.  He will get a lot of attention and none it will mean a thing.  I've said since the very first posts on this site that his oratory is completely lost on me.  I can't recall a single memorable line from any speech he's given.  Tonight will be no different. But even should he give great speech today, the real interest for me is not what he will do to turn around his seemingly sinking presidency.  No, the real make or break for Obama is what the Republicans will do.  That's who I will be watching in the days, weeks and months ahead.

Scott Brown's victory, while game changing in the moment, shouldn't be given the transformational labels it's been getting.  Scott Brown basically said no to two things: 1) health care reform and 2) increased government spending and a burgeoning deficit.  What he did not do was say yes to anything.  Major political parties and candidates can't ride electoral tides by only saying NYET.  Eventually they have to say DA.  Sen-Elect Brown is good-looking, photogenic and seemingly possessed of a nice personality and family.  That surely helped him beat the shrewish and dowdy Martha Coakley.  I said after Virginia and New Jersey that there was no national message being sent.  I still say that of those two races.  The same cannot be said for Massachusetts.  People will vent and flail - lift their torches and pitchforks - for awhile at the status quo.  But eventually they need an alternative.  Without one there can be no blow-out for Republicans in 2010.  The Republican Party is going have to, and soon, start enunciating policies besides hating Obama's.  

What is the future like under a Republican Congress or presidential administration? Do you know?  I surely don't.  Is it Bush 41, 43, Reagan, the Gingrich era or something altogether new?  Eventually the party is going to have to tell us.   Here's a test. Obama has proposed some new banking reforms.  To my mind they don't go far enough, but they go further than where we are/were.  How will House and Senate Republicans react when the bill reaches the Hill?  Are they the party of the Wall Street Journal, big banks and hedge funds?  Or are they the party of main street and this Tea Party movement that they are trying so desperately to co-opt?  There can be no middle ground for a party that at present is philosophically amorphous.  I would argue that Republican leaders should go left on this (right and left as terms start to get very fuddled in matters such as these, just as liberal and conservative labels do, as well). 

They rebelled against re-confirming Ben Bernanke - good for them.  But he is only an effect, the causes are the banks, investment banks and hedge funds.  It's a Pyrrhic victory to oust Bernanke and leave banking regulations as they are.  Everyone knows the Frank bill is weak.  All Republicans should have been leading the charge for an end to proprietary trading at a minimum and the full restoration of Glass-Stegall at most.   And while we're on the topic, why is Timothy Geitner not under Federal indictment or at the very least investigation?  He was involved in a conspiracy at the highest levels to cover-up damaging info on the Government's AIG bailout that benefited enormously his former employer, Goldman Sachs.  His actions are the very definition of a criminal conspiracy.  Why is the Republican Party not clamoring incessantly for an investigation by the Justice Department, not merely Ed Towns's committee.   What is the Public Integrity Section for, if not exactly this?  Bernie Madoff is a piker compared to Tim Geitner.  In a Congress filled - on both sides of the aisle - by gutless, political hacks, my hat's off to Ed Towns for pushing this as far as he has, even at the expense of embarrassing his President and party's leader.

I've said for over a year that the Republican Party cannot reform itself with the same old generation of leaders.  McConnell, Boehner, Steele, McCain, Palin are not what this party needs.  It needs fresh faces with articulable ideas.  Some, for the moment, see that in Scott Brown. Of course he's not the future of anything.  It's silly to suggest it. But in a total vacuum people will grasp at straws.  Sarah Palin is the natural result of this phenomenon.  In a robust political climate would this woman even get a voice above the din?  Of course not.  Just this morning Boehner was on NPR mouthing mindless drivel about cooperation and spending cuts.  No specifics, no action plan, no agenda just play it safe - more NYET and no DA.

I've recently been listening again to Harry Truman's 1948 acceptance speech in Chicago.  I've listened to it maybe 3 dozen times of late.  We're all familiar with two lines from that speech: his opening paragraph where he tells the audience that he and "Sen. Barkley are going to win this election and make these Republicans like it," and his calling the Congress back into session to work on his legislative agenda.  But what's amazing about that speech was his passion as well as his verbiage.  Within the passion of the speech was clearly a truthful man.  He was angry, disappointed (in others) and eager to set the record straight.  He says things in those remarks that no political figure, let alone a sitting President, could get away with today.  He calls the 80th Congress (he never says Do-Nothing, that would come later) anti-semitic, anti-catholic and corrupt.  Can you imagine that today?  He tells the farmers of this country that "if they don't do their duty by the Democratic Party on election day, (and vote Democratic) they are the most ungrateful people in the world."  He then says exactly the same thing to Labor.  It was honest, angry, heartfelt and genuine. No one could give a speech like that now because no one believes that our elected officials care about anything.  There's no passion or authenticity, that's reserved apparently for talk radio.  

Contrary to the current wisdom, what Obama needs to do tomorrow is not to be milquetoasty and conciliatory but rather rip the barn doors off.  Get mad, get angry.  And also come up with a Nixon goes to China idea.  I don't know what - abolish the Dept of Commerce or Dept of Education, order all cabinet depts. to slash their budgets by 10%.  Something at least that appears to be not only fiscally responsible, but evidence that he gets the public's outrage at federal spending and its growth. Throw the ball in Congress's court - his own party as well as the Republicans.  A little triangulation won't hurt anyone.  His proposal to cut $250 Billion out of a pool of approximately $50 trillion + over the next ten years, is a joke and will be viewed as such tomorrow.  

The Senate took up and rejected this week the idea of a bipartisan deficit reduction commission modeled after the successful base-closing commissions.  Harry Reid dismissed it immediately.  He talked about his fear of cuts in education and infrastructure.  The fantastical aspect of his response was that he simply doesn't get this isn't his money. He dismissed this as though he genuinely has a choice.  It's no one's money but the creditors since what he's defending is trillions more in borrowing to fund this wasteful, bloated, corrupt central government.  Nope, he said, we're just gonna keep borrowing.  This is the perfect opportunity for the Republicans to present real, meaningful, deep cuts.  I know they believe, and history has probably taught them, that any proposed cuts will be used by the Democrats as a truncheon against them.  But the mood has changed.  People are ready for honest talk and shared pain to fix this.  I truly believe that.  It is so easy to make the Democrats the party of bloat and cynicism if only the Republicans will make an honest change that's credible and believable.

Obama is no Clinton for better and worse.  Clinton had 30 years of wily instincts and Newt Gingrich as a perfect bogeyman to begin the journey back in 1995 when everyone was pronouncing his presidency kaput.   Obama has neither.  He may very well never have cheated on Michelle, but that fact won't save his presidency.   

CHANGE, WHAT CHANGE?

Change, that was his mantra.  Change from politics as usual, change from the evil Bush years, change for the better for the middle and lower classes - change.  So where are we one year later?  More than 100,000 troops still in Iraq.  Tens of thousands more in Afghanistan.  Guantanamo still open and will be one year from now. Unemployment is up and the credit markets and banks to which he has given billions are still shut-off to most Americans.  He's done nothing to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act or the ban on gays in the military.  Helping the middle-class?  No President and Treasury Secretary since Herbert Hoover and Andrew Mellon have been as kind to Wall Street as have Obama and Geitner.    Civil liberties?  He now supports illegal wiretapping and has expanded it.  

As proof positive that nothing has changed in the last year, this past week the Inspector General at the Justice Department revealed that over 2,300 illegal wiretaps were conducted by the FBI, in most cases agents falsified them as terrorist investigations.  OK, maybe it didn't all happen on Obama's watch.  But the telling thing was the reaction at Justice to these revelations.  After being caught, the FBI's General Counsel said these actions were, "good-hearted but not well thought out." Good-hearted???  Not even Dick Cheney could have issued a more dismissive, cavalier response than that.  Why aren't David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel ripping Eric Holder's head off for issuing a statement like that?  Why aren't those agents responsible and their superiors being fired or prosecuted? How is this possibly defensible behavior in a government bound by the limits of the Constitution?  The answer is that all his permanent-government type advisers tell him it will be bad for morale in the FBI or CIA if he prosecutes their criminal behavior.  Nice to know in a nation supposedly ruled by law that what that really means is we're spending nearly 4 trillion dollars a year to insure against hurt feelings by armies of jack-booted thugs. He was supposed to stop this kind of abuse from happening and when it did occur, crush it and those responsible in the name of liberty. He has done nothing. 

The Democratic party has had one completely unhindred year in power and what have they done with it?  Zippo.  They've done nothing to reward or appease their base.  They've done nothing to restore fiscal or monetary sanity to our economy.  By the end of his second year in office, Barack Obama's Treasury Department will have issued over 4 trillion dollars in bonds to pay for these deficits. It's really unimaginable to be talking of numbers like that.  And after all that spending and borrowing does the nation feel better?  Does the country think it has gotten its 4 trillion dollars worth? Sadly, no.  That money is now gone without anything to show for it.  It would be like spending $20,000 on your VISA card at McDonalds.  You've spent all that money and have nothing tangible one the food is eaten.  Not even something intangible like a child's education or cleaner air.  But, of course, you're left with the debt. Nothing except the Tim Geitner promise that it all could have been so much worse had we not spent our 4 trillion dollars.  

Speaker Pelosi has lead Obama around by the nose for a year and he has poll numbers in the 40's to show for it.  She worried about her members and their pork.  He assumed, naively, she was keeping an out eye for him and his presidency.  That's what one term in the Senate and no private sector experience will get you.  Since Obama did not have a lifetime of ideals and convictions hardened by political trial, he came into office easily swayed by Bernanke, Geitner and Summers.  His real ideological ally, Paul Volker, was shunted aside while Obama was dazzled by all these Ivy League, Wall Street wizards. They just wanted to protect the markets and Goldman Sachs. They had no interest in his agenda or those of the vast majority of suffering Americans. Reagan could never have been swayed by aides on matters as fundamental as these. That's because he'd thought about them for decades.  His beliefs, for better or worse, were rooted in the deepest of convictions and ideology. Obama has no such core and it's becoming more evident every time he speaks.     

I am a Republican and a patriot.  I'm more worried about the country and my party than the President's poll numbers.  Yes, the Obama Administration is a disappointment in every possible way.  His core supporters feel completely let down and abandoned. Those like myself who had serious doubts about him but found it unpalatable to endorse another four years of Bush's party are saddened, but not surprised.  Maybe a little surprised at how inept these people are after such a brilliant campaign.  Yes, tax credits are fine, forced retirement accounts on business might be interesting, student loan relief is, I am sure, welcome.  But these are not going to fundamentally alter his downward trajectory. 

In the new book, Game Change, Obama and his brain trust sit around a table in December 2006.  Michelle asks him pointedly, what specifically he hopes to accomplish by being President.  He says, two things: 1. inspire the nation and particularly children at the possibilities as a result of his election and 2. change the way the U.S. is perceived in the rest of the world after the disastrous Bush years.  To call that a modest agenda would the understatement of all time.  If that's all he wanted to accomplish, I guess he's succeeded.  But I thought he had promised and held the promise of so much more.  I guess we were wrong.  And if we were, the GOP needs to get its act together and be bold in order to capitalize on that. It is their boldness or timidity that will ultimately decide whether he is a one or two term president, not his.  That's why my focus going forward is on them.

 

 

President Jim Hacker

12/23    One of my favorite television shows was Yes, Minister/Prime Minister.  In one currently significant episode the Prime Minister, Jim Hacker, complains to his Cabinet Secretary, Sir Humphrey Appleby, that he is in need of some good news for his premiership and wants a summit with the French President in order to conclude the stalled negotiations over the Channel tunnel leading to a well publicized ground-breaking ceremony.

Sir Humphrey, aghast, explains that this would be quite impossible.  Negotiations are left to the Foreign Office and for good reason.  The PM says that he believes he could iron out the remaining issues himself with the wily French President without the aid of Whitehall.  Sir Humphrey then poses the tunnel's sticking point questions to Mr. Hacker: where will the new border be between Britain and France; which language should appear first on signs; who would have legal jurisdiction were a British truck to be hijacked in France, French or British police?  And on and on.  Hacker thought these silly points of minutiae although he had no simple answers for any of them.  Sir Humphrey explained that they weren't silly to the French who were demanding the border be at Dover, French be the first language on all signs, etc, etc.  That is why these matters were left to the diplomats to iron out first.  He further reminded him that the reason the Concorde was spelled the French way - with an 'E' at the end - was due to prior British Government's hastily giving in to the French.

Why am I bringing this up and why am I claiming it's currently relevant?  Because of the unprecedented performance by and towards our President in Copenhagen.  For decades, the American media have criticized the pre-packaged nature of U.S. summits; whether with the Soviets, Chinese, or whomever.  But as we know from history, working out the details in advance is crucial to avoiding huge historical missteps.  You work out treaties in advance of a presidential visit in order to avoid the embarrassment of accomplishing nothing and to guarantee that the details are in U.S. national interest.  Neo-cons are still losing sleep over what almost happened in Reykjavik when a U.S. President decided to wing it.

Barack Obama went to Copenhagen yet again hoping to charm himself into a successful outcome.  First he flew in for the Olympics without any groundwork having been laid and came in fourth.  Now he swoops in at the last minute and cobbles together a 'treaty' that is a sell-out to his supporters and a gift to his enemies.  Moreover, the President is treated in a manner by other leaders that has never been seen in the modern era.  For starters, he was lied to and left standing alone by the Chinese.  Then, like a dissident union delegation, he was forced to storm a meeting to which he had not been invited.  Finding no chair he had to squeeze in next to Brazil's President where he made awkward pleasantries in order to appear relevant.  He looked like of one those H.S. band kids trying unsuccessfully to fit in at the cool kids table during lunch.  How did this man go from being rock star cool to the world's biggest nerd in the span of one year? 

The answer is lack of focus and poor planning.  I actually like Hillary Clinton now after spending the whole of the 90's hating her guts.  I think she is smart and capable.  But these embarrassments have to be the result of State dropping the ball.  On the other hand,  it's also entirely possible Obama ignores her advice, feeling like FDR that if only he could engage personally all problems would slip away.  That didn't work out too well at Yalta and it's not going to produce any international accords for this administration.

As a conservative and someone who does not believe at all in so-called Global Warming, I am deliriously happy with the outcome in Copenhagen.  I actually think that George Bush would have felt compelled to accomplish more because of the domestic and international criticism lobbed at him on this issue.  Ironically we made out better with a true believer then an unabashed skeptic.  Now that may make me feel better, but to the President's fans and other world leaders who care about this issue and were looking for him to carry the day, he is looking weak, abused, and inept.  

It seems to me that this White House needs to stop buying their own P.R. and start putting a little faith in the striped pants set at Foggy Bottom.  Sir Humphrey, in the episode, provided the PM with a mechanism to get what he wanted.  It's too bad no one at the White House is a fan of the show or as smart as a fictional British Cabinet Secretary.  Surely Sir Humphrey would be shaking his head and saying, "I told you so," to Rahm Emmanuel right about now.

 

The End of ....Something

12/22    So now what I told you months ago is official, Rudy is not running for the U.S. Senate.  In fact he's not running for anything, ever again.  He gave as his reason the one I told you he would, he wants to make money.  All I can say is that it's sad.  Rudy Giuliani's political career is now over.  It ended apparently on January 1, 2002 only none of us knew it then.  His presidential foray was an ego sop never intended to actually achieve victory and in my mind didn't count as a serious effort.  So now he's going to be an extreme right-wing TV pundit and a worldwide salesman for the Giuliani brand.  It's all so sad.

Old Rudy used to care about things besides money.  Old Rudy wanted to be in the arena, mixing it up and making a difference.  Modern Rudy wants to be adored and above all else, paid.  The AP, in its story today, claimed that, "Giuliani's consulting business, Giuliani Partners (GP), is flourishing."  Don't you believe that for a nanosecond.  Yes, Lula has somehow missed the results from the last Latin American country that wrote a big check to GP, but the result will be the same.  Rudy & Company were supposed to clean-up Mexico City's crime problem.  Hmmmm, how did that work out? 

Now the deep poverty of Rio's favelas has fallen to Rudy Giuliani to fix.  Most of Rio's crime emanates from its slums.  The City's answer last year was to build walls around them so they would stop spreading and remove the eyesore.  Old Rudy might have gone in there with a multi-phased plan on how to combat poverty which is the cause after all of Rio's crime.  Modern Rudy will propose guns, cops, checkpoints and maybe even rendition and torture.  He'll then scurry home to cash the check.  Rio will be no safer after Rudy's departure than before his arrival.  GP is not flourishing.  If it were he might have actually considered one these races.  But it's not and if he hopes to live for another 20 years in the type of luxury he and especially Judith have become accustomed to, he knows it's Rudy who is going to have to pop his head in at client pitch meetings.  He can't do that as Governor or Senator.  The business is not self-sustaining without him.

So for the next 15-20 years of his life he will run around the world representing the interests of tyrants, despots and dictators who not so long ago he would not even shake hands with.  He'll represent the who's who of white collar villainy.  Who not so long ago he prosecuted.  He's a modern day Duke of Windsor for the politcal set.  Wanting the company and adoration of his Cafe Society (red state yahoos & Fox News) but actually contributing nothing in return except a fading memory of who he was and all that he did.  To those of us who would have done anything for him once upon a time, it's all so sad.

 

 

Repealing the Repeal

12/17    As readers of this site know, I am not a huge John McCain fan.  Nothing personal, I just don't like where he stands on most issues.  But he has now proposed something that all of us can and should get behind. 

When I worked in the U.S. Senate in the late 80's, one of the big issues forever debated, but never acted upon, was the repeal of the Depression era legislation known as The Glass-Steagall Act.  Basically, it split apart financial firms into their core functions.  Banks couldn't offer stocks or insurance products and investment firms couldn't write you a mortgage.  It was said, back in the 80's, that Glass-Steagall was antiquated and not in keeping with the modern financial times we lived in.  How wonderful it would be, said Citibank, if all its branches could offer you a range of stock investments to go along with your CD.  Everything under one roof, one-stop shopping.  I bought into that argument and supported repeal, which came about a few years later.  Silly me, however, I actually assumed government regulators would monitor the activities of these new giant financial behemoths after repeal.  That of course was not to be.

Sen. McCain, who is a principled man, voted for that repeal and like few in D.C. acknowledges now that it didn't work and seeks to reinstate the Chinese wall between banks, investment firms and insurance companies.  I haven't read his bill and don't know how hedge funds and the multiple hydras that have emerged over the last decade would be treated.  My understanding is that within one year of enactment, an institution would basically have to declare its core function and leave the others behind.  Barack Obama should support new Glass Steagall, but sadly I am betting he won't.  It will be another in a laundry list of disappointments to his base that he will surely come out against rebuilding the wall.

I think there is growing awareness that the Barney Frank financial regulation bill making its way through the House is a tame tiger.  It will do nothing to prevent another market calamity.   I do have one idea that I have not heard mentioned that I believe would prevent another housing crisis at least.  It certainly would have prevented this one.

Remember the scene in The Best Years of Our Lives where Fredric March has to decide whether to give this itinerant farmer/veteran a loan in order for him to purchase his own farm?  March struggles with the loan because the farmer has no collateral.  He explains to him that it's the bank and its depositors who will be taking this huge risk and he's just not sure the man is credit worthy.  Well eventually he gives the farmer/veteran the loan backed by the G.I. Bill.  But the anguish March expressed has all but disappeared in modern banking.  What we saw in the housing market over the last decade was none of that angst.  The reason?  Banks don't hold onto their mortgages.  They bundle them up and sell them in huge multi-billion dollar pools.  Banks often held onto new mortgages for a matter of days or weeks before selling them off to be re-packaged and sold in the market eventually as sub-prime bonds.  A local banker didn't really care how credit worthy you were because he knew they weren't going to hold onto the note.  Why would he care if you didn't make the mortgage payments, it's going to be someone else's headache. 

Had that local banker cared, had that banker known that the note would stay on the bank's books for some lengthy period of time, you can be sure he would have tested the credit worthiness of the applicant and sought sufficient collateral.  Consumers all over the country, now in trouble, have discovered how many times their loan has been turned over from one institution to the next.  Often these institutions are not banks but mortgage servicing companies.  In the old days you could have gone the entire length of your thirty year mortgage writing your monthly payment to the exact same institution.   Your bank held that loan for the entire time. 

I propose that as a central component of any financial services reform there should be a mandatory hold provision for any institution that initiates residential loans: mortgages, seconds, home equity.  Whether it's three, five or ten years doesn't really matter.  What matters is that the loan will stay on the bank's books and therefore concern itself with the soundness of the loan.  

In the decade since it was repealed, banks, investment firms and holding companies have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to operate in an environment essentially free from regulation.  The zany list of financial instruments and products offered is clear proof of that.  Sen. Dodd has said it would prove "pretty difficult" to reimpose Glass-Steagall.  What he means is not that there isn't the will in Congress, I believe there is.  What the import of his remark suggests is that the millions and millions of dollars that will surely be pouring into Congress to lobby against rebuidling the wall, makes this proposition herculean.  On that point, I agree.  But polls will be solidly behind the idea.  This is not only a populist idea it makes financial sense.  Notwithstanding Barney Frank's legislation that grants the government authority to declare institutions too large, no such thing will happen and we will be back to 2008 all over again a decade from now.  Maybe not about housing, but surely some other essential part of our economy will be strangled by Wall Street.

There was good reason to do this in 1933.  We should own up to our mistake of 1999 and repeal the repeal now.

 

The Ever Do-Nothing Mayor

12/16    A terrific contrast today as to where Mayor-for-Life Mike places his priorities.  While our Mayor gazes at The Little Mermaid and strolls through the Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen, his administration back home has told us New Yorkers where their focus is.  All three mayoral appointees to the MTA board voted for the punishing cuts to transit service, the lifeblood of New York City.  No alternatives were offered by them or by the Mayor's staff left behind in NYC.  Rather today's big announcement from the City was a contest to design condom wrappers to be distributed by the NYC Dept. of Health. 

I am often criticized for being hard on Rudy Giulani.  But any regular reader of this site knows that when it comes to defending his tenure in office I defer to no one.  It would have been unthinkable for Rudy Giuliani to have let the wasteful, bloated MTA get away with what they did today.  He would have offered sensible alternatives and barring that he would have galvanized state leaders to find solutions to avert this calamity.  And our beloved jet-setting Mayor?  He needs to be addressing the climate change conference in Denmark apparently, while the MTA punishes us with lousier service and fewer trains and buses.

I have said here repeatedly that Mayor-for-Life Mike not only shows no leadership over the MTA, he proudly abdicates that role.  Unfortunately, it has been picked up by no one else and here we have the result.  In eight years as Mayor, Rudy Giuliani never took a vacation and with the exception of the rare quicky trip to Israel, never left the country.  He worked hard and for all New York's passengers, notwithstanding the fact that he never rode the subway.  He didn't need to demonstrate his bona fides as a real New Yorker by taking the subway every day.  He knew in his soul that a. mass transit was the glue that held this city's people and commerce together and b. a diminution in the quality of mass transit - a return to the 1970's - was a one-way ticket back to the bad old days in New York.  A good transit system makes this city.  A bad one harbingers its decline.

It's too bad that in riding the subway every day Mayor-for-Life Mike, a foreigner to our city, hasn't learned any of these historic lessons.  Of course there is little chance of him learning any of this amidst the canals of Copenhagen.

 

Better Late Than Never

12/16    I told you months ago that whether or not The Working Families Party (WFP) was violating state election law, I did not know.  But I sure as hell knew they were violating federal election law.  Now the U.S. Attorney has gotten around to issuing subpoenas.  Apparently more will be going out. 

The clever dance by WFP in nominating candidates and then showing them where they can sign up for their for- profit arm, Data & Field Services, has finally given the Feds proper fits.  It's so nakedly a Chicago-shakedown, it's a wonder they thought they could get away with it.  I've said all along; mix big labor, extremist left wing policies, access to the ballot and a lot of money, and you will surely have a toxic brew.  How great for us that we now have incoming city-wide elected officials created by WFP - Liu & de Blassio - who enter under a cloud due to their tainted association.  WFP Exec Dir Dan Cantor says he welcomes the inquiry.  Uhh yea, sure.

 

 

In Defense of Arnold

12/15    Every December, The Economist puts out a year end issue that sums up the past year and makes predictions for the coming one.  This year's issue devoted a page to the "mess" in California.  The Economist is probably the finest news magazine in the world and it pissed me off that they had such a myopic view of this.  I think they have it wrong and it is really time that someone speaks up for the California version of democratic government, especially now.

It was accepted dogma in my house growing up that California democracy was something to be derided and avoided at all costs.  Unlike New York: California elects most of its statewide officials, allows for ballot initiative and referendum, term limits its elected officials and permits the recall of its elected officials. This was democracy gone amok, hyper-democracy, I was told and believed.  Something no one would wish to emulate.  Then came Prop. 13 and direct voter input on taxes.  Most of the chattering class in America treated that with equal derision. 

So now here we are.  California apparently has a significant and seemingly irreparable structural budget deficit.  Nothing they do there appears to cauterize the fiscal wound for any length of time.  And the resulting chaos only causes the rest of America to shake its head and sneer at the California brand of democracy.

But contrast California with the U.S. Government.  California has to balance it budget, it's in their Constitution.  California has no ability to print money or run year to year deficits.  At the end of the day, the asset and debit columns have to equal out.  The California budget, as well as any tax increases, require super majorities to pass inside the legislature.  So their Governor and legislature have cut and cut and cut.  The size of Government - not only its personnel, but functions - has shrunk.  They had a defined pot of money and they had to figure out how to spend it and on what.  They re-prioritized what the Government does and is ultimately supposed to do.  The people of California - who pundits say would never stand for this and will now come to regret their low-tax impositions on government - will have their say.  And you know what?  No backlash will result from the results that Gov. Schwarzenegger and the legislature have taken.  The ill-will of Californians is directed at those who hinder action, not what's been done.

The argument goes that what we see in California could never happen in Washington, D.C.  Well, at the moment that's certainly true.  There exists no awareness whatever of a problem.  Therefore the desire to fix it is non-existent.  For the first two years of the Obama Administration, the federal government will issue 4 trillion dollars in bonds to pay for his deficits.  I can't even get my head around that kind of deficit spending, let alone in two years.  And yet - the government just gave across the board wage increases to its employees, the budgets of every single department have been increased, and Congress - before they were caught - were happily buying new Gulfstreams to ferry members of Congress and the military around.  No one in Washington is compelled to see a problem, so they don't.  They have no sword hanging over their head if they don't act responsibly.  Sure, the Chinese could stop buying our debt, but that won't happen.  No balanced budget amendment to trigger action and a totally useless Republican Party drunk on pork. 

The way back for my party from the shameful Bush years is staring them in the face but they can't/won't see it.  When the government does 10,000 things but in reality can only afford to do 1,000 things then hard choices need to be made.  I honestly believe the reason that this Tea Party movement has caught some fire is because the nation is ready to have that discussion.  The federal government needs to shrink because, A. we can't afford what it does and b. a lot of us don't believe it should be  doing many of those things.  This is the perfect time to have the fiscal and philosophical argument simultaneously.  If you had a Gingrich-like platform to shrink the government, I really think people would respond and the demagoging Democrats would have to engage. 

Former Congressman Jim Leach was on NPR the other day complaining that the NEH and other agencies he oversees as the new chairman have only gotten 12-14% budget increases this year.  This complaint, with a multi-trillion dollar deficit, coming from an agency that can only marginally rationalize its existence, is typical Washington.  Do you need any better proof that no one there gets it?

We are in perilous fiscal times and choices need to be made.  What you're seeing in California is representative democracy at its best.  The People laid out some basic ground rules and the legislature has to craft its spending plan accordingly.  It's wrenching to do and painful to watch, but they're doing it; they are bringing California's budget in-line with what the state can afford and what the people want to spend.   If the critics are right, Californians will rebel and repeal many of their prior initiatives in order to pay for more services.  But guess what, it ain't gonna happen. 

The critics are wrong because they view this through a Washington mindset.  Californians get they are going to have less government, fewer parks, longer lines at the DMV and they are going to be OK with that.  This is the scope and size of government that they can afford and like responsible adults, they get that.  What no one can fathom is why these hard choices can't be made at the federal level.  With a multi-trillion dollar deficit, where are the mass lay-offs?  Where is the order from OMB for every department and agency to amass a 20% reduction that OMB will take to Congress?  What is it about Washington that makes these things totally doable in cities and states and yet not only not possible, but not even considered in D.C.?

There are many answers.  The lack of a balanced budget amendment, the lack of term limits, no super majorities for tax increases, lobbyists and huge PAC money, and a culture of total inertia, that prohibits radical change.  A real fiscally, conservative Republican Party in California also makes a huge difference.  Lots and lots of reasons.  But what we know for sure, is that Washington is rapidly becoming out-of-step with much of America, and that crosses party lines.  The ridiculousness of a Sarah Palin candidacy or book is a clear sign of that.  People are yearning for leadership, so in that search they turn to false prophets.

You cannot tell the nation that its tax dollars are going to bail-out Goldman, Bear, BoA, et al.,  produce no tangible results (they are not lending more, they're lending less) and then say we can't find anywhere in a $3 trillion bureaucracy to cut.  It's wearing thin, the anger is growing and if not directed will be co-opted by right wing nut jobs like Glen Beck, Michael Savage and Mark Levin.   That to me would be the most unfortunate thing.   This is a crisis tailor made for the Western, libertarian wing of the party.  Forget the social issues for now.  Put aside abortion and gay marriage and focus on personal liberty, low taxes and small, non-intrusive government.  Like Barry Goldwater, I would rather have a party that lead, was right on the issues and lost elections, than one that simply went along, stood for nothing and won.  In the end we'll achieve victory at the polls because we are right.  That is the way back.  California and Gov. Arnold have shown you the path.

 

Is This a Joke?

12/15    I can only assume that it must be Marc Mukasey's birthday this week and either his stepfather or Rudy Giuliani didn't know what to get him so they bought him an item in the New York Post.

Someone sent me a link yesterday to a story in the Post.  I found the story so hard to believe that I thought it must be a hoax and went to the Post to see if it indeed was there.  Sure enough, the Post is reporting that Marc Mukasey nee Saroff, wants to run against Kirsten Gillibrand.  More than that, it says he believes he'd be a strong candidate.  

Now what could lead to this sort of delusion?  Is it a mental illness or a physical one?  How long has young Marc been afflicted and should he be practicing law in this impaired state?  Do his clients know?

You remember Marc Mukasey.  I have written about him before.  He's the stepson of former Attorney General and Bush torture apologist, Michael Mukasey.  He's now a defense lawyer who represents Bernie Madoff's right hand guy, Frank DiPascali.  Sadly for DiPacali, he could not get Madoff's attorney who kept him out of jail post indictment. 

Now I deny no one their desire to seek elective office.  I respect those who put themselves out there facing the scrutiny and articulating positions.  It is hard work and if you have the calling to make a difference it can be the most rewarding feeling in the world.  What I have no respect for and never have are people who run for their resume. 

Maybe I'm just dense or been out of the game too long, but what advantages could a Mukasey Senate candidacy possibly have?  By electoral standards he's completely unknown.  He was an Asst. U.S. Attorney and now a white collar defense lawyer.  Ok, so are 10,000 other guys.  He worked for Rudy Giuliani, which sadly has become a liability not an asset in this state.  Rudy's successful endorsements over the last few years have been as infrequent as a Tiger Woods sighting.  Other than an extraordinary ego, is he possessing of any skills or intellectual talents that we've all missed?  And while I certainly except that everyone in this country is entitled to and deserves a good defense, politically we want Bernie Madoff's henchman's lawyer running for the U.S. Senate from New York?

The real question is what in the world makes this punk kid think he's too good to run for City Council, Assembly, or the State Senate.  His list of accomplishments is so vast that he's above it?  He's going to start in politics by running for a seat held by Aaron Burr, Gouverneur Morris, Martin Van Buren, Pat Moynihan, Robert Kennedy and Hillary Clinton?  Honestly, is this April 1?

Is Ed Cox - who seeks to restore a totally shattered party - going to countenance this nonsense even for a second?  Is Rudy - whose credibility is on the wane, to say the least - seriously pushing this idea?  The same Republican Party that gave us the great Jacob Javits and yes, even my old boss, Alfonse D'Amato is now seriously proposing Marc Mukasey?  

The nadir of the state Republican Party is not a Sen. Mukasey.  The nadir has been reached when there is such a dearth of plausible candidates that we have come to even the idea of a Sen. Mukasey.

 

 

 

The Evil of Goldman Sachs

12/15    There are a few lessons and rules that all Jews live by.  The most important of these is 'keep your head down."  With the exception of Israeli Jews, all Jews worldwide live in a diaspora.  For centuries we have made our homes at the sufferance of host countries, until they kicked us out.  The reason I am such an ardent, unapologetic Zionist is because I believe that every Jew, one day, will need an apartment either in Jerusalem or on some settlement on the West Bank.  Staving off the day when we'll need to move there is the job of every Jew.  Any Jew who hastens that cuts the throat of his/her people.

Which brings me to Lloyd Blankfein and Goldman Sachs.  First, let me say that I have no idea if Lloyd Blankfein is Jewish or if he is, if he's a practicing one.  But for the purposes of this post, it is irrelevant.  The issue is that most Americans believe him to be Jewish and that will shortly be my point.

As we survey the carnage and economic rubble of the last two years, many analysts like to say there are no winners, only survivors.  I, along with Matt Taibbi, disagree.  He has famously called Goldman," a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."  It's not only true and worrisome from an economic perspective, it's more troubling  to us Jews.

Unlike me, who looks upon much of what Treasury and the Federal Reserve did as a cabal of former Goldman employees seeking only to save the great firm, the vast majority of America, especially the middle heartland of the country, sees only Jews and Jewish sounding names working to save Goldman at the expense of Main Street and the U.S. taxpayers.  Making matters worse, the recipient of all this largess is ungrateful and arrogant.  To me what tied all these men together  was not the issue of foreskin, but rather office space - past and present - at 85 Broad Street.  But when the greedy, voracious firm and its management hand out obscene bonuses after taking billions and then compares itself to God, all I see is evangelical mega churches throughout the Midwest thinking, in unison, "God damn bloodsucking Jews."  The inevitable increase in antisemitism throughout this country can be laid squarely at the feet of Lloyd Blankfein and Goldman Sachs. 

Where I see the SEC unbelievably hiring a 29yo Goldman employee to run its "Market Intelligence Division" as more confirmation of the USA as the land 'by and for' Goldman Sachs, the rest of America will see Adam Storch's appointment as a Jewish sounding Goldman employee out to protect their interests from the inside and against the rest of Gentile America.  Think I'm exaggerating?  Then you don't know this country. 

Is it right, is it fair?  It doesn't matter.  It's a stupid academic exercise to look at the fairness of the situation.  The fact is that all Jews who have made it to the highest peaks have a responsibility - especially after Bernie Madoff - to behave responsibly and low-key.  In the Summer of 77 after the Son of Sam was caught, the first words out of my grandmother's mouth after hearing his real name were, "Oh my God, he's Jewish."  It turned out he wasn't, but that mattered little with a name like Berkowitz, everyone would think he was.  She honestly believed that there would be some backlash.  That was her mindset having lived through the Holocaust.  Mentally, her suitcases were always packed; ready to leave when we had outlived our welcome.  She thought it sinful for any Jew to aid that hasty departure.

I get that me and my family may not be the poster example of what I am saying.  But the truth is, we don't have a Jewish name and with the exception of my brother, none of us looks Jewish.  The scandals with which we have been involved were not viewed through the prism of that which I am writing about now.

Blankfein, Winkelried, Geitner, Goldman-Sachs.  These names may in fact all be German and Gentile in origin, I don't know.  But, of course, no one believes that.  You would be shocked how many Americans believe that there is some - or a lot - truth to the Elders of Zion and the vast, worldwide Jewish conspiracy.  That Lloyd Blankfein has so contributed to this current impression with he and his firm's behavior - past and on-going - means that the rest of us Jews will have to be eying God's little acre in Hebron just that much sooner.

 

Lacking Clean Hands in Westchester

12/1    Imagine, if you will, that 20 years ago Congress gave RJR Reynolds exclusive jurisdiction to delve into the health risks of tobacco at Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson and all other tobacco companies, excepting of course RJR Reynolds.  And RJR put out report after report about the risks of the products sold by their competitors all the while selling their own and making their brands more harmful.  And no one could say a word about it.  Or imagine Bernie Madoff being given the lone charter to investigate criminal activities at U.S. investment funds all the while everyone knowing full well of his activities.  Why am I blathering on like this?  Well those two examples are what come to mind today when I hear of the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) report on Westchester County's jail, Valhalla. 

As I have mentioned in a previous post - Kerik, Valhalla and Me - I was at that facility in 2005 for a number of weeks.  I wrote briefly about my experiences there.  It was not a great correctional facility.  The guards were badly trained and immature, the medical care was terrible, and prisoners had very few rights.  I saw prisoners there beaten routinely.  The prison had an "elite" group of guards referred to by inmates as 'The Turtles.'  They would storm into your unit in full riot gear and tear the place up, busting heads of any inmates who got in their way.  It was a pretty pointless yet frightening experience.  These 'Turtles,' while serving very little purpose from a correctional standpoint, really got off on the experience. 

But why in my previous mention of Valhalla, or even in today's, do I not come down harder on Westchester County for the lousy food, bad medical care and poorly trained staff?  Only one reason.  Anyone, like me, who has served time in many different prisons knows that your reaction and coping skills in one facility are directly related to the places you've served time in before. Why did Valhalla not freak me out?  Why didn't I crack up - as Bernie Kerkik seems to have?  Because I had been to the worst place imaginable two years earlier and after that experience, Valhalla was eminently copeable.  Where had I been that was so much worse?  The federal government's own facility in Lower Manhattan, the Metropolitan Correction Center.  

Now what right does the DOJ have to operate some of the worst prisons in America and then criticize - worse, legally compel - state and county prisons into reform?  Should Valhalla be reformed?  Absolutely, it's a fairly lousy jail.  But who is Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District, to tell Westchester County about their jails when he works mere blocks from one of the nation's worst and most brutal prisons?  I have asked this question many times on here:  who monitors the DOJ?  The Justice Department is not only the nation's top law enforcement agency it is also the nation's largest jailer.  It runs prisons that would never meet for a second the conditions it laid down for Westchester County.  Staff brutality, inadequate medical care, insufficient mental health screening and treatment?  The BOP & DOJ could not pass even the most minimum test they might create.

Rumors and lawsuits hint at the brutal treatment at federal correctional facilities.  The MDC - Brooklyn's version of the MCC - has been well documented as a house of torture, literally.  Where is the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District's scathing report and threatening lawsuit if the MDC is not cleaned up?  Nowhere.  Why?  Because you can't sue yourself.  One arm of the DOJ isn't about to sue the other.  The U.S. Attorney and the staffs at the MDC and MCC all get their paychecks from the same place, the U.S. Department of Justice.  Why does Congress allow this self-serving anomaly to exist?  I can only guess it's because there are no votes in prisoner rights and lots of votes to be lost in angering all those constituents who 'work' in those prisons.

Russ Buettner wrote a nice piece in The New York Times laying out the federal government's case against Valhalla.  But where is The New York Times in demanding that the government create an independent agency to monitor the Bureau of Prisons.  Its fine to talk about abuses and remedies at Guantanamo.  As you know, I am all for that.  But where is the equal outrage at the federal government routinely abusing prisoners in the prisons it owns/operates/contracts here in the U.S.?  This is not abstract for The Times.  Two of the worst prisons in America exist in their city - the MCC and MDC.  The DOJ settled a lawsuit recently involving torture at the MDC rather then let it go to trial and expose those conditions in court.

Were I newly elected Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino, I would accept the reforms, implement them and then countersue the DOJ and BOP for the exact same claims made in their report on Valhalla.  I'm no lawyer, but there's something in the law about having 'clean hands' when you're commencing a legal action.  The jailer (BOP), it's boss (DOJ) and their henchmen (U.S. Attorney, Preet Bharara) can't run houses of torture and then claim any moral high ground to scold localities.  Someone needs to demand that Congress create some independent authority separate from the DOJ to audit, monitor and review the BOP's practices and individual prisons.  Only then can these reports on local jails from a source such as the DOJ  have any ring of legitimacy.

 

Sen. Giuliani?? - Follow-up

I received much mail over the weekend regarding Friday's post.  I think I left a misimpression that I believed Marcia Kramer's story.  I was merely commenting on the possibilities of her claim that Rudy was in fact running for the Senate.  I do not at this point believe that to be true.  In fact, I would say the odds remain favorable that he will not run.   Rudy has a number of continuing reasons not to pull this trigger.  First and foremost is the money.  He cannot live on what a Senate salary pays.  He would have to severe all ties to Giuliani Partners (GP) which would be the death of that business.  I do not know this, but I do not believe that Rudy & Judith have a vast nest egg saved up.  I think he requires the millions he brings in each year to maintain his lifestyle.  That is one reason so much has to be comped when he travels for speaking engagements.

 

 

If the thought is to play fast and loose with either the business or whatever pay-out he would receive from GP, Rudy is prosecutor enough to take the Ted Stevens example seriously.  Senate rules, although filled with loopholes, are none-the-less very clear on what can and cannot be received as income or gifts.  And are in fact much stricter than when I worked there.  He would have to file annual financial disclosure forms which would be indictable if not truthful.  Also, a senate race would undoubtedly require that he finally reveal the list of GP clients that he refused to during his presidential run.  I have said it many times: The NY press is not going to give him the easy pass that the national press did.  Rudy is completely unused to that after eight years of fawning attention. He doesn't get this yet, but he is not Michael Bloomberg.  The NY press is not going to role over for him as they did for Mayor-for-Life Mike.  The NY press doesn't like what he's become, what he now stands for or what electing the anti-Obama in chief would mean.  If he thought the press was brutal to him as Mayor, wait till they unleash eight years of pent-up Giuliani dislike. And if the idea is not to fold up the GP tent but rather run-it from afar, lest we not forget that there is a new gunslinger in town with his sights set squarely on Rudy and GP.  I speak of course of Bill Bratton who would like nothing better than to best GP at their own game. 

 Last but not least, if he should lose this race to Al D'Amato's former intern it would be ruinous politically, financially and personally.  This is a political loss from which there is no return.  For all these reasons I do not accept that this is anywhere near a done deal.  I need a better Giuliani source then Marcia Kramer to convince me this is now full speed ahead.

 

Sen. Giuliani??

CBS News' Marcia Kramer reports that her sources have told her that Rudy is running for the U.S. Senate against Kirsten Gillibrand.  While I believed his run for Governor was never serious and was a losing effort before it would even have started, this is a different matter. 

Strengths?  He can more easily raise boatloads of cash on national issues as the dark conservative voice in D.C., than he could speaking of Albany's budget issues.  He has stalked out the hard-right Cheneyesque view of America and the world.  Sarah Palin throws in sops to the so-called Tea Party crowd, but Rudy has no love of those Liberty folks.  He's become all about the dark corners and overweening national security apparatus so popular with Bush-Cheney supporters.  It's easy to think of Sarah Palin as a joke - and I do - but she gets, at least, that the Republican party has to reform itself and create something new and appealing.  Even if that 'new thing' is hollow and actually unfulfilling.  Rudy is stuck in the Bush years.  He doesn't want to move on, he wants to go back.  There is absolutely a constituency for that point of view out there; they have money and votes.  It's not a recipe for any long-term success, but in the short term it's certainly a strategy. 

The latest poll shows him beating her 53-40.  Not a terrible starting point for him, but not as great as it would seem.  Most people have no idea who she is and in early polls register ascent for someone they've heard of, Rudy.   She has one great asset which should cause Rudy some sleepless nights - Sen. Schumer.  Chuck Schumer wants a weak junior Senator from New York.  He doesn't want to share any limelight as he did with Hillary.  In fact, he became perceived as the junior although he had the seniority.  He will not let that happen again.  Forget not that the man who ran the Democratic Senatorial Committee when they took back the Senate with win after win was Schumer.  He knows how to raise cash in a fight and throw the mud.  All of Rudy's baggage from his firm's clients to his issue stances in the 08 campaign will be played out over heavy TV rotation.  Sen. Gillibrand is a rather empty suit which brings with it the advantage of being able to fill-out your shoulders however you like.  Except for some issue flip-flopping she has no real negatives.  Schumer can mold and shape her like Gumby.  Lose some weight, hire a stylist, ditch the Eleanor Roosevelt formless, baggy suits and she might be appealing.

Rudy's real negative is that he is ill-equipped to discuss national issues.  The reason his presidential run was so awful centered around the fact that he had no position on a wide range of issues.  I've written before how his staff failed - intentionally - to respond to dozens of issue questionnaires.  Those that they did respond to were simplistic drivel.   Even without his interest in most of what is discussed in the U.S. Senate, he could still win if he had a positive message.  But his message is fear - real or imagined.  He offers no hope for better tomorrows, only blind panic.  Can he scare the public into electing him?  Sadly, that's possible.

Rudy will play very nasty.  It will be Rudy '08' mixed with Rudy '89.'   He will surely say things that are so outrageous and so venomous as to be on a regular apology parade.  This is not the disciplined Rudy of '93' and '97.'  This is the out-of-control Rudy of '08', who believes he can do no wrong.  He will hire the sycophantic, second-raters from his presidential run - who only know America's Mayor and have never met Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mayor of the City of New York -  back to the Senate race.  He will make the mistake of believing the path to victory is national.  You win this race locally, you lose it playing national.  Hillary 2000 was the shining example of that strategy. 

Barack Obama will not like the idea of Sen. Giuliani.  He won't like him devoting all his floor time to bad-mouthing him, as he did at the Republican Convention.  He won't like him blocking his agenda.  And he certainly won't like Rudy planning to use this seat as a stepping stone to the White House in Obama's re-election year.  While I do not accept that NJ and VA were really local expressions of national outrage, a Rudy-Obama match with Gillibrand standing in, would definitely be a major win or huge defeat for the White House.  NY electing Rudy would have national import.   Axelrod, Plouff, Emanuel and Schumer will be a mighty combo against the ever weakening/shrinking Giuliani machine.  This will be one interesting race.


 

 

JUST FYI...

Danny Hakim reports in the Times that Rudy is not running for Governor.  No surprise to Rudy Veritas readers.   I think you heard that here months ago. 

 

SAFE AT ANY COST

11/18    There's so much wrong with this country.  But let me focus today on the various and random news stories that keep bombarding me regarding how completely out-of-control the criminal justice system is in America 2009.

First, let me focus on this little girl in Ozark, Arkansas.  She was tasered by a local police officer when her mother called the police to their house because the 10 year old refused to take a shower.  The officer is now suspended with pay.  Ahhh, but not because he tasered the kid.  No.  He's suspended because he turned off an attached camera to his taser.  His boss, the local police chief, defended the officer's action in tasering the 10 year old saying, "This is something we have to do.  We're required to maintain order and keep the peace."   The child's father - divorced from the mother - asked that the State Police investigate.  The State Police in Arkansas refused.  The FBI is now looking at this but they appear to have no interest. 

Tasering a 10 year old for refusing to take a shower.  Did I mention that after she struggled with the cop and after being tasered, he handcuffed her and booked her for disorderly conduct and that she now faces time in a juvenile detention facility?  The police chief further defended the action by pointing out that tasers are a more effective weapon than chemical agents or dogs.  How incredibly humane that the cop didn't mace the 10 year old girl or order a german shepherd to tear her apart for not bathing.  Is it more outrageous that this child was tasered or that no one in her community finds this barbaric?  This is the post Bush-Cheney America where anything goes in order to "keep us safe."  Clearly this 10 year old girl is just steps away from refusing to eat broccoli which will no doubt result in a life without parole sentence in Ozark, Arkansas.

Next, I move on to two stories in the local NY newspapers today.  One details the indictment brought against the owner of a landmark bagel store in Manhattan, H&H Bagels.  It's a tax fraud case.  He used some bogus accounts to avoid paying unemployment insurance and stole some withholding tax.  He faces 15 years in jail.  The other story regards a NYPD police officer who perjured himself before a grand jury.  He claimed to have seen a suspect in an incriminating location related to a burglary.  The officer, as it turned out, was not in the place he claimed to be and therefore could not have fingered the suspect.  He now faces one year in prison.  See anything wrong here?

 Although it is true that judges routinely admonish juries to give no greater or no lesser credence to the testimony of police officers versus civilians, it is well known that juries and especially judges treat police testimony as gospel (that is of course everywhere but Bronx County - jurors there don't like cops).  Since this is a well know fact shouldn't the penalty for a police officer committing perjury be incredibly harsh?  Shouldn't bearing false witness - a commandment, no less - by a police officer be dealt with more severely than not paying your taxes?  Shouldn't the attempt by a law enforcement official to commit perjury in order to put someone in prison be one of the worst things you can do in our society?  I would think so.  But the government that fashions these penalties believes otherwise.  Loss of liberty, no big deal.  Not paying your taxes, very big deal.

 I guarantee you if the penalties for police perjury and prosecutorial misconduct were as severe as they are for tax evasion no cop or prosecutor would ever contemplate crossing the law.  Mandatory minimum sentences for cops and prosecutors who lie or engage in conspiracies to deprive the innocent of their liberty should be punishable by no less than 10 years in max. prison.  Do you think any cop or federal prosecutor would slip up?  Never.  But this cop gets a year. Another last month, also in NY, got three months and that was with his refusal to accept any responsibility.

 It is no wonder that in a climate such as this the U.S. Supreme Court can't come to simple decisions regarding prosecutors who frame the innocent or life sentences for children.  Poll most Americans and ask if they have a constitutional right not to be framed and see what the results are.  But the Supreme Court is now filled almost entirely with former prosecutors and unsurprisingly they seem far less sure about the answer to this.  They claim it would have a chilling effect on prosecutors if they could be sued for conspiring to frame the innocent.  Well, you kinda hope that prosecutors think long and hard about the evidence they present.  And you'd hope if they think it's false that they wouldn't offer it to a jury.  At least we - who have served on juries - would hope so.  When the decision is handed down basically upholding the lawlessness of prosecutors, especially federal prosecutors, it will fundamentally alter the country we thought we lived in.  'Safe at any cost,' will be the law of the land and we will all be the worse for it.

 

Total Abandonment

11/4    If you're looking for the specific date that Barack Obama abandoned his base, his roots and his race, mark today on your calendar.  For today President Obama's Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, will concur with the argument that black men - all citizens in fact - have no constitutional right NOT to be framed by prosecutors.  I will write more about this tomorrow, but for those who frequently write me on issues of law and justice, I want you to pay special attention today to the arguments being made at the Supreme Court in the case of Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, et al.  Change indeed!

50,000 Votes

11/4    50,000 votes.  Boy, that is an election outcome I know well.  In 1989, it was Dinkins' victory over Rudy.  In 1993, it was Rudy's margin over Dinkins.  And last night it was Michael Bloomberg's margin over Bill Thompson.  It is interesting how the same outcome could produce vastly different results in mood and psychology.

In 89 there was, in many quarters, a sense of new beginnings and "hope," at the election of the city's first black mayor.  Many of us feared a different outcome, but The New York Times crowd held sway and it was believed to be a new era in NYC.

Four years later, Rudy's 50,000 vote win was a sign that perhaps the Great City might not be dead; maybe there was still some hope after the near cataclysmic tenure of Dave Dinkins.  There was hope coupled with trepidation at the daunting task that lay ahead.  A Giuliani mayoralty was going to be a stark change from anything that preceded it.

Last night's outcome was about bitterness, resentment, and disaffection; no hope, no optimism.  Dinkins' win was enough of a mandate back then.  Rudy's defeat of an incumbent mayor was enough to proceed with a radical agenda.  And last night?  Last night was a rejection of so many different things.  And so many are to blame for the narrow loss for Bill Thompson.  Here is a list, seriatim:

1.    Democrats - National & Local:    The Democratic Party, lead by President Obama, is looking pretty shameful today.  Apparently the old fire to reclaim City Hall no longer exists.  Had the DNC, Obama, Biden, Cuomo, Clinton(s) - even dare I say used selectively, David Paterson - raised the money, done the walking tours, rallied the churches and the base, we now know the outcome would almost surely have been different.  But they have all been bought off - some for reasons understood, some inexplicably - by Bloomberg.  Why in the world was there not a presidential fundraiser at the Sheraton for Thompson, bringing in millions?  It's unthinkable.  In '93' JFK, Jr. did a walking tour on the UWS for Dinkins.  Now the Kennedy family sits opposed to the black Comptroller and firmly in the pocket of the billionaire incumbent.  All the City Council members who endorsed Bloomberg or whose Thompson endorsement was only tepid bear equal guilt.  We had the chance last night to really make history; not racial history, but political history.  But eight years of feeding at the trough of the City's largess handed out personally and selectively by Bloomberg, not to mention his personal endowments made these local Democrats lethargic and torpid.

2.    Black 'Leaders," Ministers & Pols:  Supposedly, everyone tells us, we live in a post-racial U.S.  Based on the behavior of blacks in this election, that must be true.  The public face of black New York abandoned their own in droves to favor the elitist, billionaire, Republican incumbent.   As the City's budget has ballooned, more and more local groups not are totally dependent on City funding.  Bloomberg likes to say hes above politics.  His unprecedentedly blatant use of City funds - your money - to obtain endorsements (or prevent them) is the oldest and crassest political maneuver there is.  He's not above politics, he's just monetized to an extent previously unseen.  Why would any white person trust in an unknown Bill Thompson when the 'leaders' of his own community don't.  It's a really fair question.  The black ministers should especially be called out.  Michael Bloomberg is no friend to the poor, non-white and non-Manhattanite in our city but especially in any black congregation.  Where was the passion for his ouster even if they couldn't manage the fire for Thompson?  

3.    Polls, Papers & Pundits:    Like the Elders of Zion or FDR and Pearl Harbor, there is a persistent rumor that floats around the city that just won't die.  Bloomberg apparently went to the three newspapers before he changed term limits and said, more or less, "Look, you know I'm the only guy who can lead this city through what's coming.  Let's agree to go easy on me as I do it and we'll all be better off."  Also, the rumor goes, it was not lost on the newspapers - who bleed red like a hemophiliac - that another Bloomberg run would mean millions to their respective papers.  So the Times, News and Post basically gave him a pass as he subverted existing law and a twice taken voter mandate.  Then they each, in their own way, gave him the least possible scrutiny any incumbent Mayor has ever received.  They were going to do nothing to hinder his re-election.  They then played up the inevitably angle of his run and pocketed his millions in advertising.  I would very much like some public interest group like Citizens Union to find out how much each of the three papers received from the Bloomberg campaign in advertising dollars.  I think we have a real interest in learning that number, notwithstanding the protestations from them that a Chinese wall exists between business and editorial. 

The Times especially contorted itself to get with the program.  Even down to the perfectly timed and disgustingly sycophantic Bloomberg 'biography' by the Times' dowager city reporter, Joyce Purnick.  She would have been better off writing a Sarah Palin biography for all that her Bloomberg book is going to sell after last night. Funny how quickly the Times ran "Bloomberg Re-Elected" last night, only to have to change it to "Bloomberg Predicted to Win" after NBC rescinded its call.

Yes, the paper had always opposed term limits, but it certainly never supported a subversion of public sentiment like what the City Council and Bloomberg did.  The Times is the nation's strongest advocate for public financing of campaigns and NYC's in particular.  They turned the blindest eye possible to the obscene amounts of money the Bloomberg campaign spent.  And when the time came to stop this train they "enthusiastically endorsed" his hijacking of this election.  In its 2005 endorsement, The Times referred to his spending $20 million as "obscene."  Where does that put the $150 million I guarantee you he spent here?  In its 2001 endorsement of Mark Green, they said Bloomberg was, "ill matched to the office he seeks."  The New York Times has been wrong every time it's endorsed a Mayoral candidate for over a generation.  Wrong in 89, wrong in 93, wrong in 01, 05 and 09.  The glaring exception being in 1997 when to do anything other than endorse Giuliani for another four years would have been laughable.  The New York Times has lost any moral high ground to wag its finger at anyone or anything after its deplorable behavior this election year.

But the Times is an elitist newspaper.  The News and Post, however, bill themselves as the voice of the common Joe.  So how did they react to the legislative coup to overturn term limits and permit this slim re-election?  All for it!!  Full speed ahead.  The News especially has been Bloomberg's greatest champion, he can do no wrong on their editorial page.  As they raked in the million in newspaper and on-line advertising, they each played up the inevitability of all this, ignoring the deep seething voter resentment out there.  They especially failed to see what was coming even after the primaries where it was unmistakable.  All the papers played up the polling showing a hefty double-digit Bloomberg lead, undoubtedly suppressing the overall citywide vote.  To whose advantage was that?  Hard to say, but my guess is the Bloomberg people figured it would be helpful to them since they had thousands lined up to pull out their vote both on phones and in the precincts.  The low turnout proved to be a Thompson help big time.  Had he had the unions and some real money he could have influenced - and pulled out - the other 50,000.

 

Pollsters were so sure this was going to be a blow-out that they completely missed the quiet voter anger.  Again, even after the primaries, the pollsters didn't find this.  They just weren't asking.    All the newspaper pundits, especially those who clain to have the pulse of 'the street' missed this story.  They didn't report, they parroted. 

4.    Christine Quinn:     No, I don't think Speaker Quinn's endorsement sways 50,00 votes.  However, I do believe that had she coalesced the delegation around Thompson with passion, the momentum would have shifted.  Of course her part in the term limits conspiracy is even worse than Bloomberg's so no such aid could ever have been forthcoming.  The new City Council and the county leaders need to oust her forthwith.  There is a real chance here to present a strong united opposition to Bloomberg over the next four years.  That effort can and could never, ever be lead by Speaker Quinn.  She is to her members, the city and her party the Quisling of our time.  Who betrayed Norway to Hitler?  Vidkun Quisling.  Who betrayed the City Charter, the independence of the City Council and all the people of New York to the venal ambitions of Michael Bloomberg?  Christine Quinn.  Oust her immediately!  Send her to the back rows of the Council chamber today!

I do not believe for one second that last night's results will produce a chastened Michael Bloomberg.  He is an arrogant man who is certain of the rightness of his ways and policies.  His view has always been that he's a billionaire, are you?  Therefore he must know what he's doing.  Only a strong, vibrant, well organized and cohesive opposition can return some democratic government back to New York City.  You can be sure he will have no friends in Albany, as it should be given his behavior.  He should have no friends in the Council Chamber either, most especially and ironically from the non-Manhattan Republicans who represent those most offended by his third term and anti middle-class policies.  

If last night has taught us anything it's that once again the voter reigns supreme.  He/she did when they voted for term limits once and then again.  And last night with a little more help they could have turned back a tsunami.  It's just sad our 'leaders' have once again demonstrated so little faith in them.

 

10/29    Please see the RUDY VERITAS endorsement in the NYC Mayoral race - Stealing Third     

10/23    Please see the new post on Bernard Kerik's incarceration - Kerik, Valhalla & Me

10/21    If interested, please see my reaction to yesterday's decision by Judge Jeffrey Cohen in Westchester County Court - The Worst of the Worst.

 

  
10/12    Just a few thoughts that I have been ruminating over the last week or so  - On My Mind

 

 

10/22  Farewell, Mr. Welch

In the news, the corpulent and corrupt head of the Public Integrity Section at the U.S. Justice Department is stepping down.  Over the last 25 years, the Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Justice Department has become as much of an oxymoron as military intelligence or jumbo shrimp. 

You may recall William Welch II as the man who oversaw the show trial of former Sen. Ted Stevens.  He and his colleagues at Justice are under criminal contempt investigation by a Special Master appointed by Judge Emmet Sullivan.  Of the six people at Justice under investigation not a single one has been put on leave - paid or otherwise.  It's all jobs for the boys, business as usual.  It does not surprise me for a second that no one at Justice finds this alleged behavior by senior career federal prosecutors shocking.  They've just been reassigned, free to indict other innocent, unsuspecting victims.  Free to employ their mafia style tactics of threats, lies and coercion.  The lead prosecutor in the Stevens case is still working in the Public Integrity Section, only this time in Atlanta.  The other four are all still at Justice: two work for the Office of International Affairs, and the other two remain in the tundra. 

 

In commenting on his Welch's departure, Asst. Attorney General Lanny Breur said, "I think he's an extraordinary person and a thoughtful lawyer.  Bill's shoes will be hard to fill."  I have no doubt it will take some effort to find a lawyer who is as willing as Welch to undermine the rule of law.  Perhaps John Yu or David Addington would consider the job.  It shows how tone deaf they are at Justice that rather than considering  the very serious P.R. problem they have with Public Integrity, they opt instead to give Bill Welch a nice send-off. 

His departure comes on the heels of another blow to Public Integrity with the mistrial of Kevin Ring, a lobbyist involved in the Jack Abramoff affair.  Justice trotted out, yet again, the 'Honest Services' statute to portray this lobbyist, who was merely plying his craft, with the same level of responsibility as an elected official.  It didn't work.  To demonstrate the never-ending arrogance of Justice, they have said they will retry him even though it looks likely that the Supreme Court will cut the legs out from under their case by strangling 'Honest Services,' not to mention that the number of defense witnesses has increased dramatically as statute of limitations has run out on any possible charges Justice might bring to coerce them not to testify for Mr. Ring.  And yet your tax dollars are going into another pointless show to demonstrate the unending reach and grasp of federal authorities.

I think it is worthwhile, in theory, to have a Public Integrity Section at the U.S. Department of Justice.  I would support one in practice if instead of going after local councilman with no connection whatever to the federal government, they actually strapped on a pair at Justice and launched a full probe into the activities of their good friend Rep. Charles Rangel.  Then maybe the word integrity in the office's title would have some meaning to all these Americans for whose interests they keep claiming their working .

10/8    Please see my update on yesterday's post regarding Ray Harding's plea deal- Copped A Plea - Follow Up

10/7    For those of you interested in my thoughts on yesterday's news that Ray Harding has plead guilty, please see the following post - Copped A Plea

10/16    Federal Justice

Three stories in the news this week, all relating to the federal courts and justice, have me thinking about their connection.  In the first one, Jeffrey Skilling - late of Enron fame -  will finally get his day in court.  What he has had up till now inside a courtroom can only fairly be described as a travesty.  The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of his conviction.  I could not be happier for him if I actually knew the guy. 

Awhile ago I read Kurt Eichenwald's incredibly researched and minutely detailed account of what transpired at Enron, Conspiracy of Fools.  I followed the Skilling case pretty closely and no actual evidence presented at trial either added to or refuted Eichenwald's account.   What you come away with after reading his tome is irrefutably that Skilling - or Lay, had he lived - were the Federal Government's fall guys in all this.  The real culprit, the villain, was the Government's chief witness, Andrew Fastow.  He was the mastermind and lever puller behind all the criminal behavior and activity at Enron.  What was Skilling?  Well clearly he was a terrible manager.  Fastow deceived Skilling and Lay as to the criminal nature of all this.  They probably should have figured out what he was up to, but Lay was the company's rah-rah guy and Skilling was all about vision and expansion.  But their behavior, at least what they were charged with, was in no way criminal.  The machinations that lead to the collapse of Enron rested squarely on the shoulders of Andrew Fastow.  And how did the Federal Government get him to turn?  They do what they always do.  Like some Colombian gang, they went after his family to apply pressure.  They indicted his wife.  They threatened both of them with prison, leaving their children to be raised by others.  And of course they offered Fastow a great plea if he'd cooperate.  Don't misunderstand me, I am not trying to portray Fastow in any way the victim.  But the Government's behavior makes it easy to portray nearly anyone as sympathetic.  

So Fastow's wife got a year, to be served before her husband.  He then got ten, which considering the climate then and now was nothing.  Jeff Skilling was charged with violating the federal "honest services" fraud statute and sentenced to 24 years.  So vague and meaningless, the statute guarantees that nearly anyone in America can be charged and convicted under it.  It is one of the growing police state tools that the Feds use to cower, coerce and condemn innocent defendants.  It is as pernicious as any "emergency decree" in some third world dictatorship.  And finally, finally, the Supreme Court appears to have had enough.

Here's my prediction on how this will go.  Scalia will champion the cause.  Antonin Scalia is a great jurist.  His instincts are always good.  He actually believes in the rights of the individual no matter how messy it is to achieve the result.  He showed that in flag burning, the primacy of juries over judges and most recently, the right to confront one's accuser in court (forensic lab analysts).  He does get lead astray in matters of national security but usually comes home when the issue is personal freedom.

The anti-Scalia is not Ginsburg - this is not a matter of liberal vs. conservative.  The anti-Scalia is Samuel Alito.  Alito hates the individual and loves the state in all matters.  He makes the perfect Bush appointee.  He is a dark, dark figure.  Think of him best as Dick Cheney in robes.  The Democrats nationwide and especially Senate Democrats will rue for decades their blunder in not preventing his confirmation.  He will cast a dark shadow over this nation.  His years will not be remembered fondly by anyone who loves liberty and freedom.  He is not Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy or Scalia.  Each occupies some place in the legal ideological spectrum.  His home is a dark corner where the Constitution's granting of powers to the government by the people is perpetually twisted to mean the reverse.  It will be interesting to see where he comes out on this "honest services" question.

But a word of warning to Mr. Skilling.  In my own case - the underpinnings of which came under Section 666 of the Program and Bribery Statute - the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to Section 666 while my case was on-going.  No less a source than The New York Times said that the court would not be taking the case for review unless it intended to overturn the law.  That was the commonly held belief.  Section 666, like "honest services," is widely abused by federal prosecutors.  As it turned out, the court upheld Section 666 in a unanimous decision, 9-0.  You can't predict these things is the lesson here.

Prosecutorial overreach in Skilling leads me to prosecutorial misconduct in Gotti.  We now take it for granted that federal prosecutors will behave as badly, if not worse, than the people they are prosecuting.  I don't know when this trend started, but it clearly accelerated under Clinton and went hog wild under Bush.  Federal prosecutors now routinely lie in court, withhold and tamper with evidence, harass and intimidate witnesses and defendants.   It's now a part of their code of conduct.  Winning is everything and even that does not satisfy their blood lust.  It's not enough to win, you have to destroy the defendant through any means necessary.  And no prosecutor's office exemplifies this behavior more than the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY.  It simply doesn't get worse than that office.

Look what happened yesterday in federal court in Manhattan.  A few days ago, John Gotti's prosecutor, Elie Honig, informed the judge in open court that Mr. Gotti had threatened the life of their chief witness.  It was stated flatly that the U.S. Marshals had seen Gotti mouth to the witness, "I'll kill you," and reported same to the U.S. Attorney. 

Now this is some serious shit.  Threatening to kill the government's chief witness?  That is the real deal.  Only problem - it was all a lie.  Thanks to a good judge who seemed to know not to take the U.S. Attorney's Office at their word, it was investigated.  Turns out the Marshals never saw or said any such thing. The U.S. Attorney's Office fabricated the whole incident and stated it as fact to U.S. District Court Judge Kevin Castel.  Now I can tell you as fact that many judges in that courthouse would have just taken the Government at their word.  And who knows the penalties or impression that would have been left had that incident been assumed to have happened.  For God's sake, the man is on trial for his life - life in prison.

What happened there goes on every day by U.S. Attorneys all over this country.  Granted, it happens more often and with greater consequences in the Southern District of NY, but it mostly goes unreported.  What is more troubling than their behavior is the near lack or accountability or penalty.  With the rare exception - Ted Stevens' case comes to mind - federal prosecutors are rarely punished for their misconduct.  The Gotti case is the perfect example.  Kudos to Judge Castel for exposing this, but where is the penalty?  Is AUSA Honig going to suffer some penalty for averring that this incident happened?  I would doubt it.  What does that teach AUSA Honig?  Win some, lose some.  Try again next time with another judge.  The whole criminal justice system is predicated on the idea that punishment is designed to reinforce the message that criminal behavior has consequences.  It seems not to apply to prosecutors, however, who need this reinforcement far more than those they're prosecuting.

My last thought on criminal justice today is a meshing of past and present.  Bernie Kerik, someone I knew from my past, is going on trial soon near my home, my present.  Bernie's case isn't nearly the travesty that Skilling's is, but it's close.  Yes, he was incredibly stupid for going after Secretary of Homeland Security knowing that it is one of the top intelligence positions in the government and therefore would require the most thorough background check.  Just plain ego and stupidity.  The essence of this case is that he lied in his background application for the job.  I was willing to consider that charge small and generally a waste of time, but none the less legally valid until Tom Daschle.  Former Sen. Daschle, as you know, wanted to be HHS Secretary.  He lied about his finances on his background forms and had to withdraw.  But he wasn't prosecuted.  Why not?  He owed serious amounts of back taxes and penalties.  Why weren't the perjured affirmations of his forms as criminal as Bernie Kerik's?  I have no answer other than that his case wasn't within the purview of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY.  That, however, is no excuse.  Bernie Kerik's life and fortune are ruined.  If that is to be so than at least it should be based on a consistent application of the law, which clearly this is not.  

I remind you, finally, of something I wrote recently that applies here.  I mentioned how shocked I was to discover during my case the deep antipathy that Rudy's old colleagues have for him at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District.  They really dislike him.  I believe, more than anything, this over-the-top prosecution of Bernie Kerik is another poke in the eye from that office to Rudy Giuliani.

 

10/15    I would like to link to El Diaro's withering denunciation of Mayor-for-Life Mike today contained in their endorsement of Bill Thompson for Mayor, but they have a lousy on-line edition and it's only in Spanish.  But what bits and pieces I have read in English, are right on the money.  I hope the Hispanic community in New York City, which does understand Spanish, gives it a look.

Michael Barbaro, in today's NY Times, speaks of a Bloomberg-Giuliani alliance.  Huh??  I sort of see his point how such a renewed coming together would aid Rudy.  But how is this helping Bloomberg? 

Rudy is going to energize Republicans for Bloomberg, according to Barbaro.  As a real NYC Republican, I can tell you that no amount of neighborhood walk-throughs by the two of them together is going to rev-up Republicans for this pretend Republican Mayor.  It's a futile gesture that if remotely useful will be off-set by the Democrats and left leaning independents who find Rudy anathema and would re-think their Bloomberg support.  What Bush was to McCain in 2008, Rudy is close to being for Bloomberg in 2009.  I can see a TV ad now of Bloomberg and Giuliani together with clips of Bloomberg and Giuliani with Bush.  A clever media guy could make a withering ad aimed at NYC Democrats and independents. 

The only place Rudy could have been helpful is with the Jewish community that probably still loves him - at least the aged Jews.  But I can't quite see how someone named Bloomberg needs a whole lotta help with Jews. 

Rudy has become such a completely polarizing figure - far, far more than he ever was back in the 90's - that Bloomberg's support can't ad much.  People now truly love or hate the man.  In the 90's there was room to sway the middle.  Where Rudy is concerned, there is no middle.  And those who love him are fewer and fewer, at least in NYS.

Rudy Giuliani - McGovern Democrat turned Reagan Republican turned moderate independent turned Attila the Hun.  Teaming up with Mike Bloomberg - Mondale Democrat turned Bush Republican turned mushy independent.  Based on that history there wouldn't appear to be a genuine political conviction between these two guys.  God love em, they deserve each other.

10/14    Oh, The Horror of It All

I should say upfront that I experienced last night's debate on radio, not TV.  I mention this because as we all know, given the data from viewers/listeners of the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy Debate, that one's reaction differs widely depending upon the medium by which you received the information.

However, in this instance, I cannot see that it could possibly have mattered.  Bill Thompson was awful; whether on radio or on TV.  I suggest, modestly, that had his staff just lifted whole text from this site and read it, he would have done markedly better.  He was unprepared, unfocused, defensive and weak.  There is an axiom in American politics: Voters will never elect a man to a position of leadership who portrays himself as a victim.  People want strong, forceful leaders, not weak whiny candidates.  From his opening statement Thompson portrayed himself the victim.  Bloomberg was spending all this money to attack him, Thompson whined.  Thompson never introduced himself to the audience.  Who is he?  What is his background?  Family man?  Business experience?  Who knows, he never told us.  All you know is that he's the Comptroller and was the President of the Board of Education.  And in each instance his tenure is suspect, based on last night's debate results.  Was that the outcome Eddie Castell was hoping for? 

On issue after issue Thompson was nowhere to be heard.  Congestion pricing,  MTA, Stop & Frisk, Taxes and Fees, Housing - were all issues that were raised by the panelists, not Thompson.  The three winning issues for Thompson are term limits, Bloomberg as a terrible, out-of-touch manager and his disdain for non-white, non Manhattanites.  Even the non-white aspect isn't entirely true because he's alienated so many middle and lower middle-income whites with his taxes and fees.    

When Bloomberg asked his sole question: How can you want to fire Ray Kelly?  Thompson had the perfect opportunity to say: "Unlike you, Mr. Mayor I do not believe in the theory of the indispensable man."  Boom - gotcha.  But no, he droned on about bringing in his "own people."  

Stop & Frisk?  It's an outrageous practice that I have seen in action many times living at the halfway house in the Bronx.  The NYPD uses this tactic with reckless abandon on blacks and latinos.  Who knew - Bill Thompson's for it.  Unbelievable.  It's like he actually wants to lose.  Gay rights?  Nah, better to defend the man in the White House who cannot even bring himself to utter Thompson's name.  Development - Any projects he'd want to roll-back?  HMMMM.....nope!  Even the idiotic issue of calories was a winning Thompson one.  The recent Yale study showed the whole thing doesn't work.   People almost always go for the fat versus the healthy and then lie about their choices.  Calorie signs don't work.  Ground Zero, for God's sake.  Why wasn't he called out for abandoning that project for 8 years?  Nothing.

Thompson needed to introduce himself, stand-up for taxpayers, call-out the Mayor on his shoddy, hands-off management style, lash out at the corrupt and go-along City Council - especially Speaker Quinn (her endorsement is meaningless) - all while unveiling some vision and specific proposals.  He did not accomplish a single one of those objectives. 

Michael Bloomberg is a thoroughly unlikable guy.  I've met him a number of times and he's as cold and lifeless in person as he appears on TV.  He did not break out of that mold last night.  He was easy pickings for Thompson - but nothing.  It has to be said however, that Bloomberg was prepared, focused and determined; all his handlers could have asked for.  He stayed on message and never got flustered.  For what he's capable of, it was a fine performance. 

We're gonna do this again on October 27th.  I can't imagine it will be much different.  My guess is that the Thompson people, lazy as they are, figured he did fine last night.  Eight more years of Mike Bloomberg - Oh, the horror of it all.

10/13    A Question for Bill Thompson

Mayor-for-Life Mike made a big blunder over the weekend.  He told the Staten Island Advance that the Office of Public Advocate should be abolished.  Having a view on whether to keep or discard the Office wasn't the blunder.  He then backtracked yesterday and said no, it should be reexamined by a charter review commission to see if it was still necessary.  Gotcha!

If I had one question for lazy Bill Thompson to pose at tonight's debate it would be this:  "The Office of Public Advocate was formulated by a charter review commission in the late 80's.   It was not created by the commission, that was done through a voter referendum in 1989.  The voters twice went to the polls on the subject of term limits.  First, to amend the City Charter and later to reaffirm their first vote.  Since the Office of Public Advocate was created by the same method as term limits; namely, a voter approved change to the City Charter, does the Mayor then believe that he and the City Council can legislatively abolish the Office?  And if not, what could the possible difference be legally that would allow one while prohibiting the other?"

He cannot answer that question because there is no answer to that question.  They are precisely the same.  Why have the courts upheld what was clearly an illegal usurpation of the voter's rights?  I cannot answer that.  Why did the Justice Department give clearance?  No idea.  If Mayor-for-Life Mike can change term limits legislatively then there is no part of the City Charter that he and Christine Quinn can't change.  He should be asked, "Which parts of the Charter are off-limits to legislative change and why?"

I'm glossing over the fact that the reason Mayor-for-Life Mike gave for the Office's abolition was that he is scrutinized enough and doesn't need anyone else watching over his shoulder.   That comment alone should tell the voters that you don't want to keep this guy around.  

 Question:  I often ask questions on here to which I already know the answer, but not today.  All over the internet are banner ads attacking Bill Thompson's record on taxes.  The ads are completely silent as to who paid for them.   It's very clever because the banner ad links to a page - also anonymous - that has a video contained within it that plays a Bloomberg attack ad which is identified.  But the banner ads, as well as the ad it links to, remain anonymous.  I have no doubt whatever that these ads are paid for by Mayor-for-Life Mike.  It is not at all self-evident to the unsuspecting public, however, that the banner ad or it's link are Bloomberg purchased.  I could easily link to a Bloomberg ad on this site, it doesn't mean I paid for the ad.  Under federal rules - which don't apply here - the ad's sponsor would absolutely have to identify themselves.  These ads appear completely anonymous as to their purchaser.  Is this legal?  I am pretty sure it would not be legal if they were TV or radio ads.  Is it the web that makes this practice OK?  I'm just asking.

The Deserting Democrats

9/30    After he lost the primary in 1989 and for fours years thereafter, Ed Koch was frequently asked his own catch-phrase, "How Ya Doin?"  Koch's response was, to hear him recount it, "You threw me out and now you must be punished."  By punished of course he meant having to live with Dave Dinkins running - or not - the city.  And punished we were.

My mind wanders today to that Koch story.  I could not vote in the primary or in yesterday's run-off.  I am no longer a NYC resident.  But even if I were I am not an enrolled Democrat.  So the burden for what happened yesterday does not fall unto me.  And yet I feel the weight.  I told you all last week what will happen should de Blassio and Liu succeed in the run-off: the Working Families Party, already flush with power, would only move for greater legislative gains at the expense of the Democratic Party.  The outcome of that will be an inability of the Council to refuse their demands.  And expensive demands they will be.  Just like you can lie by omission as well as co-mission and yet they are both lies, so too the cost of City government can balloon by not reforming its ways just as easily as creating a new program or benefit.   Any plan that Mayor-for-Life Mike might wish to mouth in the next four years that would bring any needed reform just died yesterday.  Labor givebacks?  New Tier for pensions?  Privatization?  Work rules changes?  All died at the hands of the 95% of Democrats who failed to go to the polls yesterday.  The Democratic Party in New York City, fractured though it may be, owes the rest of us better than this.

The interesting paradox in all this is that the vast majority of Democrats in this city do not support any of the WFP's platform items.  Yet they ratified them all yesterday by not showing up at their local school or church as surely as if they had stood out in Times Square and raised their hands.  And what of Comptroller-Elect Liu and Public Advocate-Elect de Blassio (yes, I know, but it's merely a formality)?  Just today they are already speaking of de Blassio for Mayor in 2013, as I said they would the other day. And what of Mr. Liu?  Let me go out on a limb and predict that John Liu will go down as the most corrupt and dishonest citywide official we have had since the 1920's.   John Liu may, perhaps, have uttered a truthful statement once in his life, but it died of loneliness and has long since been forgotten. 

The unions, the WFP and the elected officials beholden to them were the big winners last night.  The big losers were taxpayers and the average joe and jane New Yorker.  They have heavy demands for their support and payback is coming shortly.  It will be all of us who have to foot that bill. 

As an aside: I said the big losers are the taxpayers.  This is true.  But the biggest individual loser and embarrassingly so, was Mark Green.  This was not just a rejection but an outright repudiation.  There was nothing more compelling in the Liu-Yassky race that would have accounted for its tighter numbers as opposed to the blow-out Green-de Blassio results.  The WFP drew out its hoards in equal strength for both its marionettes.  So how do you explain the trouncing that Green took at the hands of de Blassio?    Simple, the voters really dislike this guy.  Mark Green should have won that race by 20 points on name recognition alone.  They see now what we all saw years ago: he's smug, condescending and arrogant.  Yea, he's also out of step with the times as de Blassio pointed out repeatedly.  But still.  It's one thing to lose a race, no shame in that.  It's quite another to feel so openly the scorn of the voting public.  He's finished with elective politics all right, whether he wants to be or not.

If Bill Thompson calls up Dan Cantor (Exec Dir of WFP) and offers his soul, he too may be the beneficiary of the kind of support  we've witnessed over the last 2 weeks.  But WFP doesn't need to do anymore this election cycle.  Their goal is not to succeed in electing candidates, that's only a means to an end.   Their goal is to supplant the Democratic Party.  Their old goal may have been to influence or steer the Democrats but they have succeeded beyond their dreams.  It's immaterial to them whether Thompson or Mayor-for-Life Mike sits in City Hall.  Bloomberg represents no challenge to them.  The WFP could care less how much we smoke or whether we use Oleo.  Those are Bloomberg's chief concerns.  They're after big game.  And they know that their interests will be achieved in the Council not on the other side of the Hall.  They can enact and override anything they want.  Mayor-for-Life Mike - as all three term Mayors of NYC sadly discovered - just inherited a dreary four more years.

 

 

In Liu Thereof

9/24    I suggested two weeks ago that voters going to the polls for the Democratic Primary consider two main factors in deciding their ballot.  First, was the issue of whether or not an incumbent voted/supported the repeal of term limits.  Second, was whether a candidate was endorsed by the Working Families Party(WFP).  Unfortunately, results in the two citywide races were inconclusive leading to a run-off this Tuesday.  It is worrisome that the two front runners in those races are tied inextricably to WFP. Good for the WFP, bad for us.  Let's separate the races.

The Office of Public Advocate is a meaningless job; wasting money, resources and attention.  The true negative of a Bill de Blassio victory on Tuesday is not what he might do as Public Advocate - he'll do very little; the concern is that he'll do it well.  That office exists merely as a stepping stone to higher office; Norman Siegel made that his mantra during his campaign.  I worry more about Mr. de Blassio's aspirations once he's done with that office than what he might do while in it.  His ties to WFP and ACORN are well known, he's proud of his association with both.  He cannot do much to help either as Public Advocate.  He can espouse their fringe left-wing agendas from a city-wide pulpit but not to much effect.  He can do greater harm should it appear that his 4 or 8 years as Public Advocate had meaning.  Congressman de Blassio, Mayor de Blassio, Sen. de Blassio - all extremely troubling.  All attempts no doubt with the support of the burgeoning and increasingly corrupt Working Families Party.  The time to stop Bill de Blassio's rise to higher office is now, not later.

John Liu is the more immediate and serious concern.  He is, to use a well worn phrase, a tool of WFP.  Moreover, he lacks maturity both professionally and personally.  It's not too often in politics you'll see a candidate and think, "I just don't trust that guy."  That in a nutshell is John Liu.  He is not seasoned in office for a job as large as NYC Comptroller.  Personally, time and time again, his first instinct - either in a tough situation or for personal advantage - is to lie.  He has weak moral character.  Is it his upbringing?  Is it his age?  Who knows.  That's for a shrink to decide, not the voters.  Unlike Bill Thompson - also endorsed by WFP - John Liu is theirs totally.  He would not be in this race without them and surely would not have done as well as he did on Primary day had he lacked their support.  Unlike Public Advocate, the Comptroller can make many of WFP and ACORN's dreams come true.

Little known is that before each bond deal done at HDC the Comptroller's Office has to sign off.  They are actually on the phone when the bonds are priced.  Goldin, Hevesi, Thompson used that power to ensure the deals were done correctly from a financial standpoint.  They had a viewpoint and an outlook that shaped their tenures, that's to be expected.  But what if a Comptroller's Office became a political organ and not merely a fiscal one?  What if the Office stopped approving HDC's deals unless they contained certain minimum standards deemed necessary?  Maybe more community participation - read ACORN.  Objections would be couched in the most noble and benign way.  But the results would be highly partisan and dangerous.  I am sure there are dozens more examples of the quiet hand of the Comptroller's Office of which I am unaware and yet impact our daily lives as New Yorkers.

We elect a Comptroller to manage the pension funds, audit the books, keep an eye on the agencies' spending, opine on our fiscal health and a few other things.  We have never elected a Comptroller to advance a radical political agenda on behalf of a political party or interest group.  The amount of money Comptroller Liu would get to ACORN and fringe groups like it will be alarming.  More distressing, if history is a guide, he'll lie about it. 

Yes, David Yassky - Mr. Liu's opponent - voted to repeal term limits.  He should have to pay in some way for that terrible decision.  It would be smart of him right now to disavow his vote and make clear that what he did was wrong.  He did not benefit personally from that vote since he is seeking a different office and not reelection. That ameliorates his bad vote slightly.  Ordinarily I would not suggest punishing an elected official by rewarding him with a higher office.  But this is the classic dilemma of a lesser of two evils.  The choice here however is not even close.  John Liu as Comptroller is not something we can afford to see happen.  It would be bad for our fiscal health but disastrous for our political life.

Sadly, this race will be decided by about 5-7% of Democratic enrollees.  With turnout that low the advantage always goes to those with the best vote pulling operation.  Yassky and Green do not have the energized supporters that Liu and de Blassio do.  More importantly they do not have the Working Families Party's database and union troops.  It is up to rank and file, middle class Democrats to take these races seriously and come out to vote for Green and Yassky on Tuesday.  I take no great pleasure in urging their election but the consequences of not doing so will be immediate and far-reaching for all of us.

Councilman Wrangle

9/17    Let's imagine for a moment that there is a NYC Councilman named Wrangle.  And let's further imagine that for years Councilmember Wrangle has been engaging in both illegal and unethical activities.  Here are a few examples: undereports his income to avoid taxes, lies about real estate holdings to avoid taxes, lies about his residency, manipulates and abuses government programs intended for the poor for personal and political advantage, lies on his government ethics filings, uses official stationery to raise campaign cash and help contributors.  And the list goes on and on.

Further, imagine that all this shadiness and illegal activity is revealed about Councilmember Wrangle week after week in the newspapers.  With me so far?  OK.  Now, try and create a scenario where the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY is not indicting this guy.  IT IS UNIMAGINABLE.  Let's forget indictment.  Imagine that the U.S. Attorney has not even opened an investigation into Councilmember Wrangle's activities nearly two years after the revelations began. IT IS UNIMAGINABLE.  A New York City Councilmember who had abused his office to the extent just listed would be investigated, indicted, and frog marched before a Federal Judge.  Given the way the U.S. Attorney's office handles itself of late, there can be no other outcome. 

Now here's the reveal (I know, you didn't see it coming). Congressman Charles Rangel committed all the acts just mentioned.  He doesn't even deny it; they weren't criminal or unethical, he says, they were just bad record keeping or slips of memory.

His crimes overlap so much jurisdictionally that almost anyone could investigate and indict him. And yet not a single law enforcement agency - city, state or federal - has begun an investigation of him, not one.  It may be unprecedented.  Say what you will about Patrick Fitzgerald, and I have blasted him for jurisdictional overreach in the past, but there is no way he would not have indicted Rep. Rangel by now.  Not a chance.  

David Dinkins - the man the NY Times said hardly ever invokes race into politics - said at a rally in Harlem this week that "they" were out to get Rep. Rangel.  Who'se "they?"  He also told us to ignore all these charges - forget about them.  This of course coming from the man who presented phony records of stock ownership and caused his son to perjure himself over the famous Dear Dad letter. Remember Andrew Maloney and Elkan Abromovitz?  Both concluded there was sufficient reason to believe that the letter was forged and Dinkins had lied under oath.   Yea, listen to the Prince of Probity, Dave Dinkins - Charlie Rangel's  "brother."

But we expect no better than racial bomb throwing from David Dinkins, all he has is race.  But what about Cuomo, Holder, and Morgenthau?  Why weren't the three candidates for Manhattan D.A. specifically asked by the press whether or not they would launch an investigation into Congressman Rangel?  Why is it that every time the U.S. Attorney's Office announces grandly that they are indicting some member of the Council, the NY Times and especially the Daily News isn't asking, "Where's Rangel?"  You all know my issues with the U.S. Attorney's terrible overreaching into purely local matters whether in NYC or Chicago.  Most of what they do is simply not the federal government's business.  But a federal official with local offices?  What is the point of having U.S. Attorneys out in the hinterlands if not for this exact case. 

Rep. Rangel's use of those apartments for campaign space clearly is a defrauding of the state program under which they are run and financed.  Why is Attorney General Cuomo, who will investigate anything, anywhere, not looking into this?  I have no answer other than the obvious. He along with everyone else is craven and deathly afraid to antagonize the racial hatemongers in our city.  Indicting Rangel, they believe, would cause a Crown Heights, Korean market type upheaval.  Has that ever been reason not to investigate and prosecute someone?  Apparently it is now.

And so it is left up to Nancy Pelosi and the House Ethics Committee - whose members the Daily News tells us receive campaign contributions from Rangel's PAC - to serve as the sole investigation into his activities.  Unbelievable, right?

The next time the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of NY announces some silly indictment of a truly local official the press, every one of them, should be clamoring at the press conference to find out the status of the Rangel investigation.  Rangel gets away with this criminal behavior because he is enabled.  Enabled by the gutless federal prosecutors, the lazy press corps, the Harlem pols and party hacks who rely on Rangel largesse, his congressional colleagues and the local and state prosecutors who seek his endorsement for their campaigns.

It is unconscionable that any councilmember, assemblyman or city official is indicted by the U.S. Attorney when their raison d'etre, an arrogant, corrupt federal official, mocks them openly.  That Eric Holder and Chuck Schumer's boy, Preet Bharara, ignore this behavior is unacceptable, albeit not surprising.  That the NY press corps lets them get away with it is nothing short of sinful.

 

 

Where's Your Messiah, Now?

9/16    Rudy Giuliani's inept, ham-handed and ultimately unsuccessful attempt to install a new state GOP chair reminds me - as most things do - of a line from a movie.

It's near the end of C.B. DeMille's 1956 Ten Commandments.  Pharaoh (Yul Brynner) returns to the palace after failing to drown the Israelites at the Red Sea.  He has returned to kill his scheming, manipulative Queen, Nefretiri (Anne Baxter).  As he raises his sword, she says, "Before you strike, show me his blood (Moses's) upon your sword.  I want to see it..."  He defeatedly drops the weapon.  With utter contempt, she says, "You couldn't even kill him."

Rudy Giuliani - friend of kings, presidents, despots & dictators.  Rudy Giuliani - Knight of the Garter, hero of 9/11, America's Mayor, Man of the Year, reformer of welfare and crime fighting.  And he couldn't even best young Ed Cox to engineer the election of the chairman of a withered, fractured, dysfunctional state party.  It is to weep.

It's become harder and harder to recall that the phrase, "Giuliani organization" used to be feared and incredibly effective.  Pretty soon those under 30, with no memory of the salad 90's political scene, will only associate the term Team Giuliani with gross ineptitude.  Much like many under 40 can't recall a time when the term Northeast/Rockefeller Republican would strike fear into the hearts of Western conservatives.

I have to admit, as a Nixon aficionado and former patron of his library, that having young, earnest Ed Cox soundly outmaneuver RWG brings a smile to my face.  What would the old man say?  Ed, he'd be proud.

Ray Harding used to have a mantra that I know he taught Rudy, "Before any meeting - count the votes."  Simple, but oft ignored.  Ed Cox knew he had the votes for weeks.  If he didn't know how shallow Rudy/Wojtaszek support was before, the fact that Rudy had to kill off Joe Mondello personally rather than leaving it to party bigwigs or Giuliani aides surely signaled how weak support was for Rudy.

I told you weeks ago that Rudy was not running for Governor.  The signs however keep adding up that I was correct.  CFL working for Ed Cox?  Shocking.  But if you need solid proof that Rudy is just playing with the press, look no further than Fred Dickers' item about who is heading up the Draft Rudy movement.  Any/every Giuliani insider knows that for eight years no serious initiative, no major issue of consequence was left to be handled by Tony Coles.  Behind the scenes apparatchik?  Handmaiden to Denny Young?  Sure, absolutely.  But Coles as Carbonetti or Powers? Serious pol and organizer?  It is to laugh.  Had Rudy taken out giant neon signs in Times Square he could not have telegraphed more boldly his lack of seriousness in this race. 

But this raises a more troubling question.  Why Tony Coles?  If he's chosen Coles than that means all the A-list candidates to move this effort along either refused or aren't available to him anymore.  If his grand political organization has come down to Tony Coles spearheading the effort than you can make book that this race for Governor is going forward without him.

Hindsight is easy.  It looks now as though what Rudy should have done is gotten his old job back.  He had the Republican line for the asking.  He, like Mayor-for-Life Mike, would have formed an independent party too.  With no major party backing, Bloomberg would have been left to run on Column H  or J, where no voter could have found him.  Rudy would have beaten handily Bill Thompson and Mayor-for-Life Mike.  The only job that will make Rudy truly happy is returning to City Hall and Gracie Mansion.  There would have been no shame; it's not like he's trying to regain the office of Public Advocate.  But Rudy, for whatever reason, is either spooked by Mayor-for-Life Mike's money or feels some misplaced sense of loyalty to him. 

Whatever my misgivings about President Giuliani, Senator Giuliani or Governor Giuliani, I have no fear of a Mayor Giuliani.  I know he would revert to form and govern this city effectively.  We are all the losers this year because he dithers and jerks from here to there.  The worst insult Ray Harding could bestow was to call somebody a "non-serious person."    It appears more and more evident that Rudy Giuliani is rapidly becoming a non-serious person.  And worse for him, irrelevant.

 

FOR OLDER POSTS PLEASE SEE - OLDER MUSINGS III

J'ACCUSE - Part VIII

All during the summer and fall of 2002 I started to grow more alone.  Some of my friends continued to reach out to me, but most took a walk.  That was the expression I would use to describe this, "took a walk."  Most of the friends who continued to reach out to me I pushed away.  One close friend from the Mayor's Office wrote me several sweet letters and I did not respond to a one.  Hard to explain why.  There are some experiences in life that unless you go through them yourself, you can never fully comprehend.  I imagine cancer or a debilitating illness would be one, the loss of a child by a parent would be another.  You can empathize or try to relate but you will never become fully imbued with the emotion and terror of the thing.  That is what a full fledged federal prosecution coupled with a libelous smear campaign in the press was for me.  It was something I could try and convey but you simply could not 'get' the nightmare unless you lived it personally or with me day in and day out.  I pushed most of my friends away because of the terrific amount of shame I felt about all this.  I wasn't just a deeply closeted homosexual who was outed by the Village Voice, I was now labeled a pedophile (pervert and sicko were the words the NY Post most often used/uses).

The rest of my friends I ignored because I just didn't want them getting involved in this.  I had no desire to make more people go through this with me.  I mean emotionally, not legally.  Most people I had known - personally and professionally - began to ignore me.  I lived near and worked out at the same gym with Jeff Blau, President of The Related Companies (see post: Home, Sweet, Home).  We had done a lot of business together and I had been very good to Related.  Now when he saw me at the gym or on our block he would walk away briskly or cross the street'.  I just simply couldn't understand that type of behavior.  But as time went on I came to blame no one for taking a walk.  People react to these types of things differently.  Although I had proven that I could never behave that way, I just couldn't blame others.

{I say 'proven' because back in 1991 a former Giuliani staffer from the 89 campaign was sentenced to federal prison.  He and I had become close friends.  His crimes were committed while working as Director of Advance for Elizabeth Dole when she was Labor Secretary in 1990.  His name was Mike Kaiser and he had a long history with Bob and Elizabeth Dole.  It was Mike who had arranged for her to do a Rudy fundraiser in 89.  Anyway, he was indicted for stealing Mrs. Dole's credit cards and taking off to Europe.  He had been living far, far above his means for years.  He had a penchant for antiques in his Capitol Hill townhouse.  There were other embezzlement charges to go along with the credit cards. 

Like me he had shut down and withdrew.  I followed his case and became aware through a mutual friend that he had been sentenced to a prison camp in the desert near Los Angeles.  I was planning a vacation to LA to visit friends and decided I should visit him.  I mentioned this to my friend Mindy Franklin, Randy Levine's wife.  She was extremely opposed to me going to visit Mike.  She too had been close friends with him during the 89 campaign.  The three of us had spent a lot of time together.  She mentioned my intentions to Denny Young.  Mindy relayed that Denny said if I were to visit Mike, I would be threw with the them (Rudy, Denny, et al.).  I then told Mindy something that would become prophetic.  I said, "He's all alone.  His family wants nothing to do with him, he has no friends.  If I were ever in prison, all alone, I'd sure as hell want someone to come visit me."

And so I called the Bureau of Prisons and inquired what the procedures were to visit someone.  I then wrote Mike and asked him to put me on his visitor list. I drove deep into the desert and like a mirage there appeared Camp Boron.  I believe it has subsequently been closed for some reason.  My father had told me to bring lots and lots of quarters (for the vending machines).  We had a good visit and he told me very quietly of how the US Attorney had taken a dislike to him.  They had arranged that he be placed at Lorton outside DC.  Bad, bad things happened to him there that I will not repeat here.  He was housed at max. facilities while he made his way to the West Coast and more bad things took place.  It was all very sad from every perspective, needless to say.}

The one person I had become closer to during this time was Mo Rocca.  You might know his name from the Daily Show or other TV appearances.  Mo and I had been introduced in 1999 by one of my oldest friends who happened to be his agent.  Mo having an interest in government and politics, learned from his agent what I did and asked her if she wouldn't mind asking me if I could arrange a tour for him of Gracie Mansion.  The administrator of GM was a friend so I arranged a private tour for him.  He wrote me back a nice thank you note and we became friends.  

Mo and I started to spend more and more time together.  I didn't have any openly gay friends so it was nice to finally have one. Mo and I socialized before my troubles, but we started to spend more and more time together after they began.  Mo is an interesting fellow.  He has a lot of varied interests and is incredibly bright, personable and funny.  

Mo had an abiding dislike of Jon Stewart, his boss, and especially of the show's executive producer, Madeline Smithberg.  He felt that Stewart unfairly slighted him in favor of Stephen Colbert, a Stewart favorite.  Mo thought Colbert a preening, no talent and resented the attention he got from Stewart.  Mo eventually left the show just as it was becoming a national phenomenon.  It was probably the worst career decision he could have possibly made (kind of a Shelley Long, David Caruso career choice).  Stephen Colbert, Steve Carrell, John Oliver, Ed Helms, Demitri Martin etc. would go on to great success from that show.

Ironic side note.  During our friendship, Mo had mentioned to me at one point that he considered the lowest appellation an entertainer could have was "TV Personality."  I was reminded of this while in prison and listening to NPR's current events quiz show, Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me .  Mo had always been introduced as Daily Show contributor and then author.  On this day - and every appearance that followed - Peter Sagal introduced him as "TV personality Mo Rocca."  I cringed for him.

Mo started to do morning pop-culture analysis for VH-1, CNN and then The Today Show.  I helped him with material for many of those appearances.  I have a small knack for finding old movie quotes or scenes that analogize or contrast current happenings.  Mo loved using classic movie allusions.  He would tell me stories of Katie Couric.  She took a big shine to him and eventually convinced him to fire his agent - my friend - and hire hers.  Mo liked Katie but was also scared of her.  She apparently treated poor Matt Lauer terribly.  Mo told me story after story of how she would announce to Lauer shortly before a big interview that he was to conduct, that she would be doing it instead.  According to Mo,  Lauer always took these slights and never said a word, like a cuckolded husband.

Mo also knew lots of people in the entertainment industry, especially gay industry types.  He knew the producer for a very popular Fox News show (still on-air) who told him that its anchor (still on-air) was gay and a coke addict.  Another cable star on CNN was not only gay -which most people already know - but is into some real serious S&M.  Mo had an amazing knack for meeting someone and finding out that they were gay and befriending them.  He did that at an benefit dinner with a famed New York Times reporter.  I was in awe, not only of his gaydar, but his ability to bring the topic to the fore with someone he had just met.  He was disarming that way. He had a voracious sexual appetite too.  He lived across the street from a bar in the Village where he would go most nights and manage to pick someone up and bring them back home.  He certainly didn't seem the type, but he was awfully successful at it.  

The worst part for me during this time was the waiting.  When you are being investigated your life comes to a complete standstill.  Your fate is completely out of your hands during this period so you just keep waiting for the shoes to drop.  I was a nervous wreck.  My depression deepened and thoughts of suicide preoccupied me regularly.  I had no will and asked my father to find me an estates attorney who would draft one for me.  He did and I met with them to lay out my assets.  I didn't have very much but I had my apartment which had increased in value four fold since I had purchased it six years earlier.  I had mentioned suicide to Jerry on a number of occasions and he informed me that should a defendant kill himself before the case reached a jury the indictment would be dismissed (this would later become a national issue when Ken Lay dropped dead).  This was of interest to me since I didn't want my assets seized by the government after my death.  But at this point there was no indictment, just an on-going investigation by the U.S. Attorney.

There also appeared during this time hateful internet postings and blogs devoted to my supposed venality while at HDC.  Tom Robbins had reported that my secretary used petty cash to pay for breakfast for me.  It was made to sound like this was a daily occurrence.  In fact, over 3 1/2 years this happened maybe 15-20 times and it was just a bagel in each instance.  Someone told me there was a mocking website where you could supposedly contribute towards the cost of my bagels.  It was even more ridiculous because HDC had a long standing policy - long before I arrived - that any employee who worked through lunch could order-out on the corporation.  HDC was filled with take-out menus from local places where we had accounts.  The bills each month were high but it was an HDC culture issue - just like the 100% 403(b) match - that contributed towards us paying average salaries but attracting top-flight talent.  I had revamped the corporation from top to bottom but tried to remain mindful of what made HDC such an attractive place to work.  

Fall turned to Winter and came the New Year 2003 without any resolution to all this.  It was still unknown to us how many images Debbie Landis was claiming had been in my possession beyond the one she said they had found on a disk.  She would never say and just kept claiming that they were still looking.  All the while the grand jury continued to meet and evidence was apparently being presented.  I continued to stay at home most of the time with Seabe.  No joke about being man's best friend.  He certainly was mine. 

Early in 2003 the forensic psychiatrist in my case, Mark Mills, asked me to pay him a visit in D.C.  Coincidentally, I received a call from Frank Luntz asking how I was doing.  I mentioned I was going to D.C. and he asked that I stop by his house for a visit.

Frank is a quirky, funny, loyal and extremely intelligent guy.  We had become friends during Rudy's campaign.  Frank doesn't have close friends and during those years I would have to say I was one of his closest.  Whenever he was in NYC we would meet for lunch or dinner.  Frank never gives you notice of his appearances.  He'll just call and say, "I'm here, what are you doing right now?"  I would also visit him at his home or office in D.C. regularly.  I flew down for instance for his so-called retirement party (he was retiring from polling for political candidates) that was held in a reception room in Congress.  I had a long, very engaging talk with Tom Delay that night.  Only Luntz could manage to get Tom Delay and Tom Daschle at the same party.  As a surprise I had stopped off beforehand at Sarge's Deli on Second Avenue to pick up his favorite food, noodle kugel, and brought it with me to D.C.

Most people don't know for instance that Frank's Jewish.  He also abstains totally from alcohol but we could never figure out if he was an alcoholic.  He would always dodge the question when asked.  The other two great mysteries about Frank were if he wore a toupee (we debated it constantly) and whether or not he was gay.  Frank never had a girlfriend and no one had ever heard of one in his past. 

In 2007, following Luntz's prediction in the New York Times that Rudy would receive 60% of the vote, Rudy wanted him fired.  It was up to Ray to calm Rudy down but also to calm Luntz who completely freaked out, realizing his error and not wanting to be sacked.

There is also a sad, dark side to him that the public is unaware of.  Frank would go through episodic bouts of deep depression.  They were related, I believe, to a lack of self worth and serious father issues.  When these episodes would come he would disappear for days, sometimes weeks.  It was up to his staff to cover for him.

The great thing about Giuliani people is their loyalty and heart.  Frank has a lot of professional friends and clients, but during these episodes it was only the Giuliani people who would gather round and find him help.  Ray would usually be the point person on this.  I don't think it's widely known but on at least one - and I think more - occasion Frank had to go away for treatment.  I believe Ray arranged it.  I never asked Ray directly when I found out at the time and he didn't volunteer.  At Frank's bad times Ray and Rudy would talk about what needed to be done and Ray would usually reach out to Luntz to set things right.  Giuliani people are never given the proper credit for being extremely thoughtful and compassionate at moments like that.  That was the old Rudy whom he all respected.

Sadly, for me, that get together at Frank's house in Virginia would be the last time I would see or hear from him, other than on TV.

At some point early in the new year, Mo called and asked if I wanted a computer.  He was upgrading to the latest Mac and was giving away his old one.  I had been without a computer since Jerry needlessly acquiesced to the prosecution request that I should consent not to have one at home any longer.  I had been without one for about 11 months and I was very bored siting at home all day.  So I brought Mo's computer home and reactivated my Time Warner internet service. 

The U.S. Attorney's Office would claim it was this internet service reinstatement that caused them to "rush" to indict me more than a year after they began investigating.  They would use words like 'urgent' and 'deeply troubling' to describe their need to move "swiftly."  So at 6 AM on St Patrick's Day 2003 the lobby intercom rang.  The person on the other end said in a loud, seemingly drunken voice, "Happy St. Patrick's Day, Russell."  I hung up and wasn't really quite sure whether to go back to sleep.  On the one hand, Jerry and I knew this day was imminent.  On the other, I didn't think it would be on St. Patrick's Day.

Sure enough, a few minutes later the doorbell rang and I was being arrested by investigators from the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOI.  As I knew this was coming I had made arrangements with a neighbor to take care of Seabe.  I told her I would inform the doorman and he would ring her.

My favorite story as it relates to what idiots DOI investigators are comes from that morning's arrest.  First, you have to understand that DOI has absolutely no legal standing in any of this.  When my apartment was searched a year earlier they were there in numbers but couldn't touch a thing since a Federal search warrant gives them zero jurisdiction.  But they hung around all day acting smug doing nothing productive.  Every court appearance I would ever have, there were not US Customs officials from my case, nor U.S. Attorney investigators.  They were all working; their presence wasn't required for motions and arguments.  But sure enough the first two rows were filled with DOI staff.  Every single court appearance there they were as opposed to actually working on City business.  As I have said before, absolutely the most useless and inept City officials are DOI personnel.  

But I digress.  As I was getting dressed, in my bedroom hovering were a Fed agent and the "lead" DOI investigator, a guy named Brian Foley (You'll most likely recall him as the lowlife who posted a threatening comment on the first day of this blog).  At one point he starts yelling at me regarding how I was getting dressed.  He screamed that I was stalling.  Since a young age, when I donned a suit with dress shoes I would put on my socks and shoes before my shirt, suit and tie.  Why?  It's what my father did.  He told me in the army this was how they had instructed him to get dressed (the idea being in an emergency you would have your footwear on first in order to leave the barracks quickly).  Obviously, whether you put your footwear on first or last, it still takes the same amount of time, only the order is changed.  Well this guy was so stupid that he couldn't grasp that.  So I started screaming back.  Finally, the Fed guy who couldn't believe what an idiot this DOI guy was, said, "Lets everybody calm down." 

After I got dressed I kissed Seabe goodbye.  He was very confused and naturally wanted to come.  Seabe is a gorgeous yellow lab and was unusually attached to me.  He did not like being away from me, ever.  I was always afraid during law enforcement's presence that Seabe's boisterous nature could get him hurt (You may recall the young married couple who had their two yellow labs shot and killed a few years ago during a raid of their home by a Sheriff in Maryland.  After storming the house to arrest the owner and killing the two labs it occurred to them that they had the wrong house).  When I knew the search warrant was coming I had sent him away to stay with friends.

The Fed guy at this point explains to me that he's going to do me a favor.  He's going to cuff me from the front instead of the back.  This was breaking procedure and he wanted me to know this so that I should be grateful.  It's so unbelievably idiotic that they were arresting me in the first place as opposed to self surrendering.  Now I was supposed to be grateful that he was handcuffing me.  This lead investigator from the U.S. Attorney's Office, whose name I forget, and I would meet again one more time.  But while I wasn't contemptuous of him the way I was of DOI lackeys, this guy was always just a little too slick for my taste.  Like most Feds I have met before, and since, he thought he was cleverer, suaver and better dressed than he actually was.  I don't know why they all suffer from these same delusions, but they all do. 

I was lead out of the building just as the night and morning doormen were changing shifts.  They gave me very sympathetic looks and I told them to ring my neighbor to look after Seabe.  The porter volunteered to get Seabe and walk him right away.  As I sat in the back of that car heading to Federal Court, I thought to myself, "OK - at least this is now ending, so it can begin."

{Next installment - How a Gotti Kept Me in Jail, Arraignment and How Many Times Could Jerry Shargel be Wrong?}

OLD MUSINGS III

Primary Day in NYC

9/14    Tomorrow is Primary Day here in New York City.  This year there has been much heat but very little fire.  Newspapers have commented on the fact that the candidates for citywide office are tired, old retreads, no new blood.

There is much truth to this but those of you enrolled as Democrats have to play the hand you've been dealt tomorrow.  So may I, as an enrollee of the other major party, offer some advice on how to choose your nominees. It seems to me that this year, more than any other, there is a major guiding principle that should lead all voters, not just Democrats, in choosing their candidates.  I am not one for single issue politics.  A candidate for office, especially for higher office and those seeking reelection, should be judged on the totality of their record, not just one vote or one position on an issue.  But this year is very different.

We live in a representative democracy. This is not ancient Greece.  We cannot all stand in the public square and raise our hands to decide every issue.  That is why we have representatives who act in our best interests and on our behalf.  They should reflect the will of the people that elected them but I have respect for the courageous man who bucks the tide when the moment demands it. 

What we cannot respect and never abide is the elected official who acts purely out of self interest or for the special interest when the public clearly demands otherwise.  That is especially true when no compelling reason exists to defy the public will.  In New York City in 2009 that issue is term limits.  Be for or against the issue itself, I can see arguments for both sides, but you cannot accept that after two public referendums where the issue was decided clearly and decisively, a public official who for no explainable reason other than to perpetuate him/herself in office, blatantly defies the expressed public will.  It is intolerable and unacceptable.  It is a mockery of and an affront to our form of government.   Made worse - and nakedly exposed - by the fact that term limits were not repealed, only extended to allow the current office holders to remain incumbents.  It might be one thing had they openly repealed the law on the grounds that it is awful policy leading to a dysfunctional government, as many critics have charged.  But no.  They only extended it to allow Mayor-for-Life Mike and his accomplices to hang around a little longer.

You have this year running for citywide office a number of candidates who voted for or supported the successful effort to extend term limits.  As none of the candidates for Public Advocate or Comptroller has caught the public's imagination and there appears to be no huge divide on their issue stances, you should let there vote/support on term limits guide you.

I will make two endorsements in tomorrow's primary.

For Comptroller, you should seriously consider David Weprin.  He was a champion against the extension of term limits; he has been an effective and independent Chair of the Council's Finance Committee and, like civil service exams where you get 5 points for residency or being a veteran, I give him 5 points for being from a distinguished and honorable political family that has served NYS and NYC well.

For the vestigial office of Public Advocate I will shock those who have known me over the years and strongly urge you to support Norman Siegel.  Why?  Well a few reasons.  Yes it is a totally needless office that exists, as I have said, because of a quirk in the charter reform process back in the 1980's.  But it's here to stay for now and has been lately decimated by the Mayor and City Council.  With a shrunken budget and staff you are going to need someone who has experience working within those confines.  As Mayor-for-Life Mike looks to be headed towards another term, you need some check, however feeble the office, against his power.  The City Council has become a joke when it comes to providing any meaningful restraint against him.  Norman Siegel has been the leader, literally and figuratively, in the fight to turn back the Council's term limits power grab.  Mr. Siegel has said repeatedly in his campaign that he views the office as a voice for the unrepresented and that his opponents view it merely as a stepping stone.  He's right.  He actually wants to do something, if possible, with that office, whereas they want to be someone from that office.  It makes a difference.  I do not believe that he can be bought off by Mayor-for-Life Mike like his opponents, yes, including Mark Green.  I have probably agreed with almost no stand that Norman Siegel has taken over the years, especially in the Giuliani years, but I think he's probably what that office needs at this moment in time.

The other factor that should weigh in your decision tomorrow is the Working Families Party.  They are becoming a corrupting and corrosive influence in New York State politics.  You should seriously consider not voting for any candidate who has been cross-endorsed by the Working Families Party.  I fully acknowledge that come the General Election I will have to eat those words for the office of Mayor, but that will be the unique exception and I will explain why when the time comes.

As for why you should care what I think on any of this, let me just say this.  I have more experience and knowledge regarding NYC politics and government than 99% of those who read this blog.  I began my political activity in 1972, at the age of eight,  working on the campaign of Rep. William Fitts Ryan against Rep. Bella Abzug.  Weeks later working on the widow Ryan's campaign after a successful Rep. Ryan died after the primary but before the General Election.  I never stopped after that working on campaigns and following the players.  I may have worked on campaigns before the age of eight, but I don't remember.  Maybe that longevity and my insight on how city government works from the inside is worth a little something to you.  But as with any issue, you decide.

Not Gonna Happen in 2010
 

9/9    Remember Claudette Colbert in It Happened One Night?  She and Clark Gable are trying to hitch a ride.  Macho Gable is striking out using his thumb.  Then Miss. Colbert tells him to step aside, lifts up her skirt to expose some leg and a car screeches to a halt to pick them up.  I'm reminded of that scene witnessing Rudy Giuliani of late.  He appeared on Meet the Press this weekend to show some leg and stop the presses.

His performance on the show and lately in general have caused me to conclude that he is not running.  In fact, as sure as I can be without actually knowing his inner thoughts, I am convinced of it.  What an aging, out of office politician of Rudy's stature fears most is becoming irrelevant, the phone stops ringing.  The only way to reverse that is to get back in the arena.  All arguments for getting into the race.  But he's not.

When political reporters, observers and pundits look at a Giuliani candidacy next year they ask themselves two questions: 1. can he win and 2. what happens to him if he doesn't.  What is causing Rudy Giuliani sleepless nights is neither of those questions, actually quite the opposite.  What he fears most is not losing but winning.  Not because he fears governing or leadership.  No, I believe some reincarnation, however modest, of old Rudy would reemerge to manage the state and he is certainly very confident of his abilities.  Modesty is not a Giuliani trait.  What terrifies him is the bi-weekly paycheck from Tom DiNapoli.  You see unlike other millionaire/billionaire candidates (Kohl, Corzine, Bloomberg, Schwarzenegger, Bredesen etc.) who have made their pile and can govern while maintaining the deluxe lifestyle, Rudy cannot.  Rudy is something of a modern Sherman McCoy, Tom Wolfe's main character in Bonfire of the Vanities.  Sherman made millions a year but could just barely keep his head above water due to his expenses.  It was Wolfe's genius as a writer that you actually empathized with Sherman's money woes.  That is Rudy - minus the sympathy.  He makes millions a year.  But he also shells out millions a year.

A win next year would cause him to severe his ties to all Giuliani Partners and Bracewell and Giuliani streams of revenue.  No more paid speeches at 100Gs a pop either.  He would actually have to live on $179,000 a year.  Granted, he would work out ahead of time some large payout from both the law firm and consulting firm to tide him over, but neither is raking in the bucks now that they once did.  The payout will not be tens of millions, just millions.  Is there some reason to believe that a former Governor Giuliani will be worth millions and millions in the private sector like he was after 9/11?  The answer is no.  His political career would be at an end.  His attractiveness to the right wing yahoos from Texas and Oklahoma that he so assiduously courts would once again be tempered by the sure to be moderate record of a Gov. Giuliani.  It is a simple political fact that a Dick Cheney wannabe Rudy could not govern this state.  A Rudy Giuliani from 93, 97 or even 89 could.  The Limbaughs, Hannitys, Coulters, Savages and Levins would not like that. Fred Dicker would postpone his mused retirement to chronicle the ethical accommodations of a Giuliani term in Albany, not to mention the clamor for release of his clients, past and present.  No more tiaras for Judith or G5s to travel.  Have you ever ridden the state plane?  It sucks.  Yes, a law firm would snap him up in a minute post service, but not for the $$$ he once commanded. 

No, what's at stake here is a yen to serve, matter and make a difference or be Jay Gatsby.  FDR was faced with a similar choice after his polio struck.  Mama wanted him to return to Hyde park and live the easy life of a country squire.  He instead chose the difficult and painful - yet fulfilling - life in the arena.  Of course FDR didn't have money concerns.

I have come to the conclusion that like the Duke and Wallis Simpson what matters to the Giulianis is the adulation and cafe society, no heavy lifting involved.  There are a number of factors and indicators besides the ones just stated that lead me to say this: I will go out on a limb here and say that there will be no Giuliani candidacy.  He is just appearing on these shows and giving these interviews because for the moment he matters again.  And what political figure of Rudy's stature doesn't need to be needed.  In his case, so long as it doesn't cost anything.

ABOVE THE FRAY

8/31    Like some of you, I listened to the Public Advocate debate this weekend.  Hearing the debate and seeing Mark Green run again for his old office reminded me of a famous Saturday Night Live sketch.  It was 1988, shortly before the New Hampshire primary.  The SNL sketch was a debate between the Republican contenders.  It was most memorable as the first time Dan Ackroyd did his Bob Dole impression nationally and Al Franken tried out his Pat Robertson.  Nora Dunn, playing Rep. Pat Schroeder, was the moderator.  The last question to the candidates was, "you're all bright, articulate spokesmen for your party.  But only one of you can be the nominee.  Would you accept the number two spot on the ticket?"  Each candidate in order mocked the position and derisively scorned the notion of serving as Vice President.  Bob Dole added, "the only person I can think spineless enough to want the job would be my good friend George Bush."

Then she came to Bush, who said he wouldn't rule it out.  "I'd make a damn good vice president.  I've been there, I've done it - for eight years  - and I could do it or eight more."  Now that to me was one of the funniest bits in a sketch that was already hilarious.  It's commonly accepted in American politics - or used to be - that nobody really wants to be Vice President.  Mondale, Gore and Cheney have changed that view somewhat but conventional wisdom still held in 1988.  And here was Bush, having done the number two job for eight long years, saying he'd do it again for eight more. And what's more he admits it in a presidential debate.

Now here you have Mark Green saying essentially the same thing.  Isn't his whole candidacy premised on the Bush/Carvey line, "I've been there, I've don't it - for eight years - and I could do it for eight more."  Except he's not running to return to the majesty and power of the Vice Presidency of the United States.  He wants to reclaim a job that only exists because the powers that be (county bosses) who amended the City Charter after it was ruled unconstitutional agreed to save a job for Andrew Stein.  That is the sole reason that position exists.

I think Mark Green's candidacy is pitiable.  He has become the living embodiment of the caricature that Dana Cavey tried to turn George Bush into 21 years ago.  The difference of course being that George Bush never wanted to be V.P. a second time.  That would have been mockable.  Mark Green does want to be Public Advocate again.  And that's just sad.

I Want to Be a Part of B.A.
 

8/27    Argentina has never been known as a bastion of democracy and freedom.  Images that come to the fore are more likely military coups and the financial crisis of the 90's than freedom of the press.  But this past week something extraordinary happened there.  We, the United States, like to think of ourselves as the example for the world in democratic rule.  GW bush wanted to export it like Coca-Cola or blue jeans.  Sadly, if we were a model he surely tarnished our brand for generations.  The cause of freedom and the libertarian ideal got a big shot in the arm this week not from Washington, D.C. but from Buenos Aires of all places.

The Supreme Court of Argentina handed down a decision that many of us can't imagine happening here in our lifetime.  The justices did not decriminalize marijuana for personal use, they legalized it.  The distinction is extremely important.  Decriminalization amounts to holding your nose and permitting behavior you believe criminal or immoral but societally tolerable.  What the court said was that this was a matter of personal freedom.  The use of marijuana was a decision for adults to make without interference from the state.  Those of us who believe that drug laws in this country are not only ineffective and harmful but contrary to the American principle of personal responsibility can only look upon the court's ruling with wonder and envy.  I don't use drugs, haven't in nearly twenty years, but should I choose to that decision should be mine alone, not the governments.

Argentina has now legalized drug use in small quantities.  Mexico quietly decriminalized personal possession of most drugs.  Brazil will shortly legalize personal drug use.  The drug war is lost and never should have been fought.  In the coming decade, country after country from Sweden to Portugal will lead the way.  How long will the U.S. hold out?

As for Argentine democracy, however much it might make many chortle, Democrats can only look down Argnetine way with lust at a nation that freely elected first the husband and then the wife (Nestor & Cristina Kirchner) as its President.  That is something the Democratic Party and the U.S. itself could not achieve in 2008.

ON MY MIND
 

8/26   1. Rudy Giuliani's favorite movie, as everyone knows, is 'The Godfather.'  Apparently he sought to act out a scene from that film this past week.  Usually Rudy is Don Corleone.  But this time he was playing the Tom Hagen part.  I am guessing that Tony Carbonetti and Peter Powers were unavailable or have decided to step back from chores like these. 

Rudy ventured out to Wolz Studios - in this case Nassau County - in order to see Joe Mondello and obtain his signature on a piece of paper.  Fans of the movie will recall Tom Hagen went to see Mr. Wolz in order to get the producer to sign Johnny Fontane to his new picture.  Fans will also recall the unnamed bandleader who wouldn't let Johnny out of his contract and was assured that "either his brains or signature would be on that piece of paper" - the famous, "offer he couldn't refuse."

Well Rudy left Joe Mondello's office and shortly thereafter his signature was affixed to a press release announcing his intention to step down as Chairman of the State GOP.  One has to wonder what offer did Rudy make Joe that he could not refuse.  There have been no reports of decapitated equine down state so that can't be it.  So what was it and what does it mean?  Rudy clearly wants the state party lined-up for something.  Governor in 2010?  I am not a betting man, but if I were I am not prepared yet to see him doing this. 

Second acts in politics are hard, third acts nearly impossible.  Richard Nixon most famously lost - narrowly - a presidential election and then went on to an ill conceived race for Governor of California. He doggedly worked the next six years to reestablish himself within the party and in the voters' minds as the "New Nixon" of 68.  Rudy Giuliani is not Richard Nixon; he lacks his discipline and focus, not to mention his analytical ability on domestic and global affairs.  A losing race in 2010 would finish him off for good. 

I think Rudy, like many, isn't convinced Andrew Cuomo has the guts to do this.  No one has ever lost money betting on the cowardice of the Cuomos and people just don't see Andrew stepping up to the plate and killing the king.  That is Rudy's reluctance and that is what he is waiting to see.  But in the meantime Rudy is acting as Don and Consilgiere all-in-one.  His circle is shrinking instead of expanding.  That is what fated his downfall in 2008.  Unlike RN he doesn't seem capable of learning from his mistakes.

2.    Ted Kennedy.  Naturally, there was almost nothing I saw eye to eye on with the late Senator.  But I respected him as a legislator.  I worked in the Senate and saw him up close.  Both the good and the bad.  He was what everyone is saying today - a hard worker who could form coalitions on issues he was passionate about.  He was a fighter for what he believed in and a dogged, tenacious opponent of that which he opposed.  The bad was his personal behavior as was constantly talked about on the Hill.  He and Chris Dodd banging and sharing waitresses at La Colline over and over again.  Not pretty.

My favorite Ted Kennedy moment happened years before I went to work in the Senate.  I was 16 years old working as a page at the 1980 Democratic Convention in New York.  As now, I was a Republican - if then only in spirit.  But there looked never to be a Republican Convention being held in NYC and working any national convention seemed thrilling.  I hated Jimmy Carter.  I was glad Ted Kennedy challenged him even if he couldn't enunciate his reasons for wanting the job to Roger Mudd.  I was working the convention floor the night of his speech.  Just as I would be the night Jimmy Carter mangled Hubert Humphrey's name and Ted Kennedy deprived him of the 'arms held high' victory/unity symbol.

I was raised in a household that carried the Kennedy torch; JFK and RFK were true heroes to both my parents and instilled in them their love of politics.   I didn't share the crowd's passion that night but only an idiot could fail not to be moved by the moment.  It was electric.  I was standing right beneath the podium when Ted Kennedy said, "the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die."  It wasn't my hope or dream but the place erupted and wept.  It was certainly one of the most memorable moments of my young life. 

3.    I of course have no personal knowledge of Bernie Madoff's health or lack thereof.  But I am an expert in the ways of the US Federal Bureau of Prisons.  I suspected all along, the minute I heard he was being sent to Butner, that he was ill.  A few facts:  The BOP has a 500 mile rule.  You will be incarcerated within 500 miles of the Court in which you were sentenced.  There are three exceptions that the BOP makes to that rule: 1. You have family in another part of the country.  In that case the BOP will consider another region; 2. They are punishing you.  The BOP routinely punishes inmates; either inmates who don't follow the rules or just inmates the BOP considers troublesome (suing the BOP too much, appealing your conviction, filing grievances against the staff)by sending them far away from their families; or 3. There is no space in a prison of your security level within 500 miles of your court.  

Now Butner is 481 miles from Bernie Madoff's home.  Just under the limit.  But there were closer facilities to which he could have been sent.  Why there?  Because the prison he is in is feet away from  the BOP's "premier" medical facility.  In fact, it's their cancer center, FMC Butner.  I was there for 20 months.  I suspected that was the reason he was assigned there.  Furthermore, knowing the BOP as I do, I can tell you with absolute certainty that their statement yesterday denying it is almost unprecedented.  The BOP makes a point of not countering press speculation.  I knew many high profile inmates who asked the BOP to issue a statement denying something and the response was always the same, "that's what your lawyer is for."  Equally suspicious, was the BOP's attack on the Post.  Even if the Post story were inaccurate, it wasn't a malicious story regarding the BOP - the Post wasn't claiming Madoff was being denied treatment.  But the BOP launched into an outright attack against the Post.  Why?  I suspect they don't want to appear in any way to be providing him favorable treatment.  Sending him to the prison next door to their cancer center would make it far, far easier for him to be moved there permanently than if he were in another prison nowhere near North Carolina.  As for Madoff's attorney, Ira Sorkin, he had no comment.  The Post story sounds about right to me.

4.    Race.  We have reached the nadir of our political lives when Dave Dinkins and Al Sharpton are giving Gov. Paterson soothing advice on race and polling.  In essence telling him to chill out.  The NY Times yesterday wrote a very kindly piece - as they always have - about David Dinkins and race.  They rewrote history by claiming he rarely mentioned it as Mayor.  It seems the Times is still trying to overturn the 93 result.  David Dinkins was never stupid enough to do what Dave Paterson did and claim outright that his poll numbers were as a result of racism.  But anyone who attended or watched his press conferences saw him over and over again ask these rhetorical questions of the press leading to only one answer - in his mind - racism.  After leaving office he spent the next eight years on NY 1 as a guest asking these same questions over and over, never able to come to terms that he was a failed leader and that in 89 he was an unproven party hack which accounted for the narrow race after the primary (not to mention the fraudulent letter and stock deal).  He did it again in the Times story which ironically was claiming that he almost never did it.  In today's paper there is a story about Al Sharpton advising Paterson on how to modulate comments on race.   It's truly Alice in Wonderland.  You need Dave Paterson out of office just so that Sharpton and Dinkins are not the voice of reason on the subject of race. That's apparently what we've come to.

5.    Is it just me or has the press failed to take notice of a pattern of lying from Mayor-for-Life Mike.  The incident the other day about transit pay raises; did anyone believe Mike when he totally disputed Roger Toussaint's account of their phone conversation?  I don't think so.  Mayor-for-Like Mike has a truly despicable habit of lying when he's been caught in something, even something innocent.  That is a very troubling predilection in a Mayor.  Recently, in a Vanity Fair  story about the Madoff sons, Bloomberg totally denied writing one of them a letter of recommendation to a country club.  The reporter had the letter, it was undeniable, and yet Mayor-for-Life Mike denied it.  So he wrote one of the kids a letter, who cares?  Why would someone deny something like that?  In my own case, he denied having met me, although we had met, dined and chatted on numerous occasions.  It was a ridiculous thing to deny, but he did. 

More troublesome - and I have been mentioning it on this site since the day I launched it - is how completely out of touch our billionaire Mayor is with common folk.  The exchange the other day on his radio show regarding the pay for execs at big pharma is a prime example.  First, why would someone assume that execs at those companies don't make heavy bucks?  Second, why did he instinctively defend them?  Third, when he discovered he was wrong, his admission - which sought to show some outrage at their compensation - sounded more like he was impressed.  "Oh, the guy makes $27 million, that's better," it seemed like he was saying from his tone.  He can't relate to 99.9% of New Yorkers and worse, never makes the slightest effort to show that he can.  He thinks schmoes making $50k are just that, schmoes.  He truly believes that there has to be something wrong with someone who isn't making at least $30 mill.  They must be lazy or stupid, he assumes.  His utter disdain for most of the city is evident in his poll numbers.  There can be no other explanation why someone with a 60% approval rating is at 47% in the polls.  People don't like him because they know he is openly contemptuous of them.

6.    The NY Times ran an editorial yesterday bemoaning the plight of juvenile offenders at NY State prison facilities.  The Justice Dept has issued a scathing report on conditions in those prisons.  Two years ago, everyone's favorite prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, also released a report on the abuse in Chicago prisons; the physical abuse and lack of medical treatment.  I shook my head then and shake it now.

When Patrick Fitzgerald released that report nearly every single charge he made was true, and worse, in federal prisons.  The BOP is monitored by no one.  The BOP and US Attorney's Office are housed within the US Dept of Justice.  No sister agency is going to investigate the other.  Where was the US Attorney investigation into abuses at federal prisons?  You, the reader, assume they don't happen because you never read about them.  You never read about them because no one has jurisdiction to investigate.  No state official can investigate a federal prison in that state; no D.A., state attorney general, sheriff, or state crime bureau.  There is no federal oversight of the BOP other than by that agency's inspector general and everyone knows that office in the BOP is a joke.  So while the NY Times rants and raves about state prison conditions someone should be asking these US Attorneys why they never look within their own jurisdiction?  Inmate abuse, withholding of medical treatment through neglect, malice or incompetence is rife throughout the BOP.  Violation of prisoner rights is the norm in the BOP not the exception.  I will be detailing stories later in J'ACCUSE, especially of the medical horrors.  Just ask yourself the last time you heard or read about a federal prison under investigation and ask yourself why you haven't.  I assure you it is not because they are abuse free.

8/10    Please see the new post, THE GIULIANI - MADOFF CONNECTION.

8/12    Please see the new post, J'ACCUSE - Part VII



 

YOU HUG IT, YOU OWN IT
 

8/11    Colin Powell famously said of the Iraq invasion and the American occupation to follow, "You broke it, you own it."  Much the same could be said of President Obama's inept handling, not of the economy - which is most definitely mishandled - but of the public's perception surrounding those responsible for its sorry state.  In Gen. Powell's example there was no way of invading and occupying a country and not being seen as laying claim to the action.  But Obama didn't create this mess, he inherited it.  So why is he creating no daylight between himself and the bad numbers?

Those old enough to remember or have studied FDR, know that he spent nearly his entire 12 years in office blaming Herbert Hoover for everything.  FDR had a visceral hatred of the man and his policies.  At the first sign that the economy was retreating - and it did for much of the 30's - he would start talking about the 20's and Hoover.  Mostly it was politics but some of it had a basis in fact.

The Great Communicator had eight years in the White House and from Jan 20, 1981 until the day he left, he blamed Jimmy Carter: his philosophy, management, ideology, for all of the nation's ills.  And in the main he was correct.  Ronald Reagan didn't accept ownership of the recession he inherited ever!  He accepted credit for the recovery that he initiated and engineered.  It was always Jimmy Carter's disaster. Reagan and his aides never let you forget it.  I lived in DC for the last few years of the Reagan Administration.  The failed policies of Jimmy Carter was still the mantra even 8 years later.  It worked.  Carter was a pariah even within his own party for a decade.  He couldn't attend the Democratic National Conventions for years.  Ronald Reagan did that.  Barack Obama seems to have learned the wrong lessons in those fancy schools he attended.  His attack dog advisors have given him nothing but losing advice.  

On or about his 60th day in office he started trumpeting how the economy was turning around.  Once he did that he owned it.  You hold a baby's dirty diapers at arms length and hold your nose, you don't embrace the mess.  The "not bad" bad jobs numbers that came out last week are a perfect example.  Yes, its possible to twist and squint so that they looked less than awful.  But why would you?  We're in a horrific recession.  George Bush, his policies, his management, his detached, ineffectual leadership caused it.  Why would anyone else take responsibility for it?  Those of you who admire Obama for "stepping up to the plate" or "putting the past behind him" may be satisfied with your hero being in office for a very short time. There's nothing admirable about letting George W. Bush off the hook.  Certainly not to the millions who believed Obama was their savior.    `

It is insulting intellectually for Obama and Biden to tell the American people that this stimulus package has done anything - good or bad - yet.  With only 20% of the funds having made their way into the economy and only a few months having passed no sensible person could be made to believe that Obama's policies have made any difference.  And yet we all know the economy, at least the employment numbers and the perception - if not actual growth, will get worse through this year and the beginning of 2010.  So why identify yourself with these awful numbers, why spin them when they're not yours yet to spin? 

The Obama Administration should have only started accepting this economy as its own sometime in the early Spring of 2010, the serious start of the midterm elections. At that point time would have ended the recession, as it does with most of them, or his policies, as he claims, would have produced results.  If neither were true it really wouldn't matter by then because there would be nothing to do about it except blame George Bush for destroying the economy.   But those options have been removed.  The president for better or worse owns this mess he's hugged it to his and Larry Summers' bosom.  Like so much of what he's done already: Guantanamo, torture, wiretaps, constitutional accountability and gay rights, it's another in a disturbing string of perplexing Obama letdowns.

Memory Woes

8/6    Great wealth breeds great arrogance.  In the continuing saga of who asked for $1.5 million for two Jewish service organizations, Mayor-for Life Mike says yet again, it's a faulty memory (NYT Blog).  He now says we should keep paper records because people can't be expected to remember these things.  Oh, really?  A $60 billion enterprise keeping records, wow that is some great management innovation from him.  Only one problem, records were always kept by the Mayor's Office of Contracts (MOC).  It was only under this administration that they seemed to have stopped doing so. The question is why.  Why didn't MOC have a record of these particular requests? And what were they doing approving the funds without one, if as they say none exists/existed?  There is so obviously more here than meets they eye.  The Councilmember involved has no known reason to lie and moreover, only the paperwork for these two organizations are non-existent out of the dozens of requests documented by MOC for Councilmember Felder.  This episode is the very definition of a conspiracy.  That's clear.  What is unclear is why and by whom.  Amazing to me still that in this age of runaway prosecutions for nearly everything, this can't attract the eye of any prosecutor or investigative agency.  I wonder why.

Nicht Ein Wort

8/5    It used to be said that people liked billionaire candidates for public office because they weren't corruptible.  They wouldn't steal your money, the theory went,  because they have so much of their own.  That still remains true.  But what now seems apparent is that they needn't line their own pockets for them to be politically corrupt.  Mayor-for-Life Mike has been engaging in some pretty impressive political corruption of his own to the tune of nearly $1,500,000.  Now as is his habit, he's lying about it.  I will not attempt to explain the minutiae of the scandal, the New York Times can explain it much better than I can (NYT story).   

Essentially Bloomberg wanted to augment his own personal charitable giving to two Jewish groups with City money without any scrutiny or fingerprints.  So he and his staff violated long-standing city rules as well as the rules of his own Mayor's Office of Contracts (MOC).  Monies, such as they disbursed, require that either a Borough President or a City Councilmember be listed as the requester of funds.  No such office made the request for those funds.  The Mayor or his staff assigned to those disbursements the name of a City Councilmember.  That Councilmember, Simcha Felder, vehemently denies ever requesting the money.  Moreover, the Mayor's Jewish liaison left city government to become a lobbyist for one of the two groups shortly after the funds were disbursed.  Does this thing smell or what?

I was head of Inter-Governmental Affairs in the Mayor's Office for 2 1/2 years.  This cover-up of an appropriation and violation of MOC rules is unprecedented.  The Mayor and his staff are playing this off as a simple disagreement in remembering events -  "Felder says he didn't and we say he did, end of story."  This he said/he said explanation is fine were it not for the fact that laws have been broken and about $1.5 million dollars was improperly and secretly dispersed.  Why was it done?  Why was Felder's name used and not another elected official?  What ties existed before between Bloomberg staff and these organizations?  In our day, MOC checked with officials to verify they requested the money.  Why was that not done here?  I could go on.  I ask these questions to make the point that clearly this needs to be investigated.  But by whom?  The joke in all this is that there is, in theory, the perfect agency to do the work.  But, not surprisingly, they have been deadly silent.  As my mother would say, "Nicht Ein Wort."  Not one word. 

The NYC Dept of Investigation has a checkered and mostly ignoble history.  It is common knowledge that no serious investigation of a senior member of a Mayoral administration has ever taken place by DOI.  Whether it was Koch, Dinkins, Giuliani or Bloomberg, any investigation that you want kept away from serious law enforcement is sent to DOI.  It is the place where tough scrutiny goes to die.  Sure, they'll investigate building inspectors and contractors for corruption but an administration official of high rank?  Never.  The irony in all this is that the current scandal is tailor made for a supposed administration watchdog like DOI.  Someone is clearly lying.  This is not a difference of memory.  Who better than they to find out who.  They absolutely do not need the mayor's invitation to begin an inquiry.  The Commissioner of DOI, Rose Hearn, made a big point upon taking office of throwing barbs at the Giuliani Administration's management of DOI and promised unbiased and ruthless investigations.  

Of course that was a joke.  She may not have fully understood that back in 2002.  It's possible she didn't know the Keystone Cops that comprise most of DOI.  Or that from Day One Mayor-for-Life Mike was never going to let her run wild through his backyard.  But here we are.  Cover-ups, paybacks, lies within City governement, who knows what else.  And DOI sits whistling, starring at the ceiling, trying to avert its gaze from the curious onlookers waiting to see what they'll do.  It's a rather mute point since if the pressure becomes strong enough and Mayor-for-Life Mike does send this DOI's way it will be with the full understanding of where this can go and how far.  But it would be nice, for once, to see Rose Hearn at least pretend to live up to those tough words of January 2002. 

 

The Utter Nerve

8/4    Imagine for a moment a Mayor of New York City running for reelection telling the voters that in his next term he would lobby his Dept of Transportation commissioner to pave more streets.  Or he would beseech his Sanitation commissioner to plow roads faster during blizzards.  You would have a citizenry scratching its head at the total disconnect of the man.  And yet Mayor-for-Life Mike has said essentially that.  He proposes in his next term to 'lobby' the MTA to do various things incorporated in a new campaign document his staff dreamed up.  Faithful readers of this site know I have railed over and over again that Mayor-for-Life Mike has cynically avoided accepting any responsibility for the abysmal management of the MTA.  He has pretended for 8 years that the MTA is some amorphous being over which he has no power.  Rather than the truth which is that he has three crucial appointments to the board that can and have shaped policy in previous administrations.  Now, not content with that fiction, he seeks to perpetuate it.  I had expected him to say, "In my next term I will make the MTA eliminate fares on cross-town buses.  If they don't, I will hold up business till they do."  He can if he so chose (I will write at greater length closer to the election how this is done if the will is there). Basically do an about face in an election year.  

But instead he has said the same thing over and over.  He'll lobby the MTA, like he would lobby Albany for a piece of legislation.  But of course, that is another fiction.  He is so utterly despised in the State Senate and by much of the Assembly that he dare not step foot past Kingston.  He can't get anything done in Albany.  He can't get anything done at the MTA.  He can't get anything done at the Port Authority.  D.C. felt free to snub him and the P.D. by denying the greatest terrorist target in America extra police funding.  Can you imagine them doing that to Giuliani?  And the MTA knowing his record and lack of fangs responded to his pledges by saying, "they would study them."  In case you haven't spent time amidst giant bureaucracies, that means, "Fuck Off!"

There was a report yesterday listing the worst airports in America.  Guess who has the top three?  Yup, the Port Authority of NY & NJ (PA): JFK, LaGuardia and Newark.  You may recall some time ago I blasted Mayor-for-Life Mike for blowing the literally once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that Rudy handed him to take back JFK & LaGuardia once their leases expired.  Rudy had laid out the groundwork, the leases were expiring in a short time.  All Rudy's successor had to do was set-up a new authority to accept them and begin the transition.  The financial markets were no longer going to lend to an entity whose very existence was in question.  Rudy had them.  But no.  Mayor-for-Life Mike, seeking as always less responsibility not more and as one of his very first acts as Mayor, extended the leases for marginally better terms.  Thereby dooming the local, domestic, and international traveling public to a miserable flying experience for generations. It was the greatest gift the PA had received since its inception.

Some enterprising reporter - or Bill Thompson's opp research team - should go back and check what Bloomberg had said about the PA when he handed them the airports for another 50 years.  I am sure it would contrast sharply with his current view that "Perhaps, the PA doesn't represent the interests of NYC."  Ya think?  A TV commercial on this would be a no-brainer.  NYers hate the airports more than anyone.  Rightfully so.  Is this a man whose judgment and honesty you can trust on crucial matters?

I am desperate to ask - how stupid exactly does he think we are?  But the answer is we're pretty stupid.  He was reelected with absolutely no rationale.  He pulled a coup d'etat by hijacking the City Charter in order to perpetuate himself in office.  And yet he has a 60% + approval rating.  It is telling however, that if these polls are to be believed - and I am not sure they are - that with $20 million already spent versus a nearly non-existent opponent, he is losing ground.  The only explanation I can see after studying polls for over 30 years is that people genuinely dislike him.  Why else would someone with a 60+% approval rating have below 50% against a nobody opponent.  Clearly nearly a decade of open contempt for his constituents, their problems and their lives, is coming home to roost.   I have always found him to be intensely dislikable; that was one reason I chose to leave rather than serve under him and run HDC.  I urge Bill Thompson's staff to read my Mark Green post.  Howard Wolfson is one mean motherfucker.  If these polls are accurate and Thompson gains traction, Bloomberg's City Hall will be looking very closely at the Comptroller's Intel detail to see what they might know about their charge and what the Bloomberg campaign can leak.

During the transition in 2001 Vinny LaPadula told me that Bloomberg had told him that he had every intention of continuing to run the day to day operations of Bloomberg, Inc.  Testimony from the various sexual harassment suits at Bloomberg pretty much confirms that.  Profits for the company and himself have increased exponentially over the last eight years.  He's the richest man in the city.  The city however hasn't fared so well.  Our budget has doubled, our debt is skyrocketing and will consume us in the out years, pension costs due to giveaway labor contracts will become crippling, crime is rising, the subways are slower and dirtier, everything is more expensive.  But luckily we can't smoke, eat trans-fats or drive through much of Manhattan.   His value as mayor has been exactly what he commands, $1 a year.

Why exactly 47% of the city still would vote for him is a mystery to me but maybe we're waking up.  Trans fats, smoking, urban beaches at the crossroads of the world and calorie counting may be cited as an impressive set of accomplishments for a Surgeon General.  It is laughable as an 8 year record for a Mayor of New York City seeking voter reaffirmation. 

 

To Be or Not To Be

8/3    We've reached some point in NYS politics when even the New York Post is getting fed up with Rudy.  The Post, long a Giuliani promoter, had an editorial over the weekend regarding the 2010 Governor's race and essentially telling him to (insert scatological aphorism here).  They reminded him that his delay in 2000 to enter the US Senate race against Hillary Clinton left an already weak Rick Lazio even more hapless by stymieing his fundraising and support.  Thereby costing him any real chance of victory.

What precipitated this admonishment was a Crain's breakfast last week in which Rudy said that things would have to be pretty bad in the State for him to consider running.  He joked - his trademark these days - that he only runs when things are at their worst.  The moderator, Greg David, even commented that Rudy didn't seem prepared to run.  It wasn't clear to the former Mayor if David meant organizationally or by his vague answers to the questions.

So what is Mr. Giuliani trying to tell us?  I can guarantee that he doesn't know so there is no way we can.  But we do know a few things.  First, what he really wants is to run for president again.  He truly believes that four more years of Bush-Cheney policies would have righted the ship with him at the helm.  Unfortunately, no one - save one delegate - believed that in 2008 and fewer will buy it in 2012.  I would bet a lot of money on a second Obama term; less for political reasons than for historical ones.  But even if 2012 turns out to be a good year for Republicans they will not be turning to the past.  I can assure you that the nominee of my party will be someone whose name did not appear on a presidential ballot in 2008.  That's right, Mitt Romney will not be the nominee.

But a stateless Rudy Giuliani needs a home.  1600 Pennsylvania Avenue appears blocked for now.  Gracie Mansion has a lifetime occupant who refuses to leave.  That leaves 138 Eagle Street, better known as the Executive Mansion.  So Rudy looks over the dusty drapes and carpets and muses aloud, "I might consider it, if the offer were right."  The offer apparently is that we have to beg and plead for him to save us.  Rudy is Moses, you see, and we the Israelites turn to him in our time of fiscal and legislative bondage.  Rudy sees himself leading us out of the dark Albany corridors and into a prosperous land flowing with budget surpluses and tough appelate judges.

But the question I have been asking for almost a year still remains unanswered; which Rudy would be running in 2010?  Is it the far-right, Cheney admiring, giggling, torture apologist of 2008?  Perhaps it's the unsteady, philosophically unsure and organizationally challenged candidate of 1989.  Or maybe it's the open, inclusive, independent, confident, sometimes polarizing but always serious leader of 1993.  Of these three Rudy personas which would you choose?  Not only the man you would vote for but the one you'd want to project to the voters in a time of crisis.  The answer of course is C.  But inexplicably Rudy and his advisors over at Giuliani Partners believe A is the winner.  There is no explaining it so there can be no explanation.  The full Randy Levine conversion of Giuliani from an independent maverick into a Tom Coburn clone is complete. 

More disturbing than how he would run is how he would govern.  Again, we do not know because we don't know which Rudy currently inhabits the body.  1993 Rudy would restore New York State to fiscal and political sanity.  1989 Rudy would do a competent job, with slip-ups along the way.  And 2008 Giuliani would have us in a full scale political civil war within 6 months.  That is how stark the differences would be.

Personally, I do not want to beg anyone to take the reigns of leadership.  Part of being a great leader is having a burning need to do the job.  Giuliani made it clear at the Crain's breakfast that no such fire exists yet.   I do not know what to make of all this.  But I do know that he is quickly becoming a tragically flawed figure of Shakespearean dimension.  My advice to him at this point would be to leave the Hamlet act to the Cuomos.  They have it perfected .

 

7/30    I have taken yesterday's post recounting my time with Charlie Millard entitled, The Zarb, and created a separate post.  I have also added some new analysis and an addendum.  Please see the new post - THE ZARB.
 

So the sentence is in and it's 150 years.  First, let me say that I cannot understand why Bernie Madoff did not commit suicide before he plead in March.  I can only assume he had no full understanding of how horrible life would be in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.  I am sure he now regrets not having done so.  I don't say that because I have any blood lust about this whole matter.  But a man entering his twilight years does not want to spend all of them in a federal prison.  His life will be hell from now until the day he dies.  Satisfaction to his victims, I am sure, but bewildering to me as to why he would want to endure that.  The cruelty shown him by BOP personnel and the lack of decent medical care, just as he really starts to need it, will blow his mind.    I can only assume he bought into this notion of 'country club prisons.'  No such thing exists in the BOP and because of his sentence he will have to go to a USP (United States Penitentiary - Maximum Security Federal Prison).  Ira Sorkin did him no favors by not painting as brutal a picture as possible.  He'll probably wind up at Lewisburg in Pennsylvania.  I knew many people who did time there.  While it is not the worst of the worst, it ain't no fun for a 71 year old man who had maids and butlers.  I befriended an elderly man who had done time there.  He regalled me with stories of his one-time bunk mate - Alger Hiss.

I respect Denny Chin as a jurist and I do not believe he gave into the braying crowd.  I will say I am sorry that he did not admonish these greedy investors who put total blind faith in Maddof and now shriek and cry of their miserable lives.  He conned them, no question.  But he also gave them plenty of clues that he was conning them; they just chose to ignore them.  I read an article this weekend that said on the firm's statements sent out to investors, it would routinely refer to some of their assets being invested in a Vanguard fund that had been discontinued years earlier.  Do investors have no personal responsibility?   Especially investors of this caliber.  I think a psychiatrist would say that the white hot intensity of their hatred has as much to do with their inability to come to terms with their own culpability in all this as it does with Madoff's. 

On another judicial front let me applaud the Supreme Court's ruling in the New Haven firefighter case.  The one piece missing in the reporting on this story from the liberal media is that the City of New Haven spent hundred of thousands of dollars with an outside consultant specifically to design the test  so that black firefighters would score well - and they still didn't!  How fixed did this process need to be?  Their argument about lawsuits was specious from the start exactly because they had taken the precaution of having the text designed so that black firemen would score higher.  Other than outright quotas there was nothing more the City could have done.  But they were cowardly in the aftermath.  Instead of sticking by the results after all their efforts they decided merit had absolutely no place in this, even a merit-based test that was partially fixed.  Ruth Gingburg can keep her sympathy for the white firemen.  The court partially redeemed itself today from its weak decision of last week on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

I am sorry they did not decide the McCain-Feingold case, however.  I have no hatred of Hillary Clinton.  She is merely a vehicle in this case.  McCain-Feingold is terrible law.  Whenever and whatever the Court can do to erode it is fine with me.  I hope when they rehear arguments in September that the right decision will result from it. 

6/25    The rehabilitation has begun.  Rudy Giuliani sought to remind us yesterday that he is a citizen not of Texas or North Carolina but rather New York.  He wrote an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times calling for a state constitutional convention - "Putting New York Back Together."  

There's very little doubt that New York State needs some constitutional changes.  Anyone reading a newspaper these days can pretty well see that.  We have a vacancy for Lt. Governor, with no mechanism for selecting or confirming one.  Our budget is constantly late and estimates are invariably wrong or shoe horned to fit the Assembly Speaker's spending priorities.  These were two of the issues raised by Rudy.  The others were judicial pay increases, term limits, campaign finance reform, supermajorities for tax increases and redistricting reform.  Most of these are laudatory and if he were an academic writing in the Manhattan Institute's journal I'd say 'interesting.' 

But he's not an academic, he's Rudy Giuliani.  And what we expect - or should - from Mayor Giuliani is leadership.  A constitutional convention would take years - probably two or three - to commence.  Unlike his stated expectation, it would be seated and staffed with the exact same people who are playing 'hide the key' in Albany right now; trust me they would have it no other way.  California and Connecticut have both rejected such conventions in the last few years.  Each had its own parochial reasons for rejecting the idea but the common one was that neither saw how it was possible to create a body of citizens that would not wind up being controlled by the same people who've created the mess the convention was chartered to fix.  No one has yet come up with an answer for that.

But putting aside the mechanics and the rather bland 7 point plan the Mayor proposes, what would he do now?  Sure, it's fine to say 3 years from now a convention would be a nice thing, but what would he do today were he in a position of leadership?  He's silent on that point.

I notice two things coming out of the Mayor's Op-Ed.  One most striking feature is what he did not call for - public referendum.  The other is how little attention he received for this first foray back.   The two go hand-in-hand.  His proposals were bland, rote and unoriginal.  Hence, the lack of coverage.

True conservatives - not of the Dick Cheney strain - believe in public referendum.  It is no panacea - especially when the voter's will is ignored as with term limits in NYC -  but in a state as politically and governmentally dysfunctional as New York; where our leaders no longer lead, the public has a right to express itself and change the direction of the state.  Usually that is done at election time by selecting candidates.  But it is not working here anymore.  With the status quo in Albany seemingly impervious to change, does anyone see hope for reform through the normal channels?  

Conservatives such as Rudy fear the public will unchecked.  This is not without reason: the public can behave as crazy as our legislators.  But it is deep rooted in a fundamental mistrust of citizens, much as we see in Iran.  Just enough democracy is ok, too much is dangerous; so the thinking goes.  I have always rejected that.  The old conservatives - what I like to call the Western Cons (Goldwater & Reagan) - always supported public referenda on the local level, so it is notable that Rudy left it out.

If this piece in the Times yesterday was his start at rehabilitating himself, it's too little and too late.  He needs to do what I have told him to do for months: Explain, and if need be, apologize for his positions of 2007 & 2008.  Return to Mayor Giuliani and leave behind too clever by half candidate Giuliani.  Only until he does that can he begin to reform and regain our trust.

6/22    As President Obama signs the most significant smoking legislation since the 1960's; giving the FDA unprecedented oversight over tobacco, I thought you might be interested in the last time the new FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, was involved in significant smoking legislation.  It occurred in 1995 and Rudy Giuliani was Mayor.  New Post:   Where There's Smoke...

6/23    On Monday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the much anticipated case, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder.  The case was widely seen as a verdict on the future of a key provision, Section 5, of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  The case involved the pre-clearance provision of the Act.  Named states, cities and counties must seek clearance from the Justice Department before making any substantive changes to their voting procedures or jurisdictions.  Most had thought, many had hoped, that the justices would throw out that provision maybe even invalidate the whole Act.  Unfortunately, they gave the plaintiff what they wanted but left everything else intact.

The Supreme Court will often not decide a matter that it has not been asked to decide but rather settle the narrow issues if possible.   That is what it did here.  They said Northwest Utility could opt out but said no more than that.  It is clear that there were at least three possibly four votes to throw out Section 5: Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia.   So why not decide the broader issue?  My guess is that they didn't have Justice Kennedy on board and they preferred a small win as opposed to a large defeat.

Chief Justice Roberts made it clear, once again, that the country has changed dramatically in the last 40 years and he is seeing no real need for these types of measures.

As all politics is local, I will bring this back to NYC.  Many of you not from NY would be shocked to learn that three of the five counties that make up New York City (Manhattan, Brooklyn & The Bronx) are covered by the pre-clearance section.  People tend to think these statutes apply to the deep south only.  But the named entities are spread throughout the country.  Recently, the Mayor and City Council overturned our term limits law here.  Two separate voter referendum had enacted and then confirmed, by substantial majorities, the voters determination to impose term limits on our local elected officials.  Those referendum made no provision whatever for an elected body to overturn the voter's decision. 

And yet, our term limited Mayor and City Council by a simple legislative vote overturned term limits.  I had assumed that when this went to the division of the Justice Department that handles Section 5, it would deny approval for the change.  But no, it gave its blessing.  Millions of voters, including many minority voters, voted for term limits without any 'out' for the incumbent politicians.   True, a federal judge rejected a challenge to the Mayor's self-serving move.  But I felt sure that if this provision was supposed to have some meaning it was that self-interested localities could not up-end the will of the electorate.  And the minority electorate in particular.  But no.

This was the most blatant act of voter disenfranchisement in the history of our city.  And the Justice Department is fine with it.  I can tell you that Justice's acquiescence surely doomed the chances of a black man, Bill Thompson, from running an effective race against the incumbent, Michael Bloomberg.  This landmark piece of civil rights legislation has been used to deny a black man his opportunity to seek higher office.  Could that have possibly been the intent?  I don't think so.  This is Chief Justice Roberts' point in practice.  Evidence that laws can outlive their intended original purpose.

So here we are.  Section 5 does not protect minority or majority voting rights from a small group of grubby, self-interested politicians.  Then what is the point of it?  And how can we rationalize its further applicability in a nation that has just elected a black President or a city that has elected a black Mayor, black Comptroller, and various Hispanic Boro Presidents.  Or a state that elected a black Lieutenant Governor who is now our sitting Governor.

It seems that when it comes to the rights of prisoners and defendants the Supreme Court is only too happy to make broad, precedent setting decisions denying them their rights and vastly expanding those of the police.  But when it comes to the rights of average voters in a possibly courageous decision, timidity seemed to be the watchword of the day.

6/18    Honestly, is it just me?  Tell me, I can take it.  Am I the only one in this city who sees what a buffoon and dullard Mayor-for-Life Mike is?  He has gotten to be so out of touch that he doesn't have the faintest realization to be embarrassed at the things that come out of his mouth.

He tells us yesterday that maybe, just maybe, the Port Authority of NY & NJ doesn't have New York City's interests at heart.  Really.  This is just dawning on him apparently.  For eight long years the Mayor of this city has told the Port Authority he wanted nothing to do with them.  Not in the way Rudy did, however.  When Rudy said I want nothing to do with you, he referred to their total bloat and incompetence. He meant, I'll go it alone where I can and torture you unmercifully where I can't.  No, what Mayor-for-Life Mike meant was, do what you want, I won't trouble you.  And he never has, until now. 

The PA is dragging its feet on rebuilding Ground Zero.  They won't renegotiate terms with the developer, Larry Silverstein.  For the moment I won't get into the merits of that argument.  But it is nothing new.  I walk by Ground Zero every day and it is a testament to the failed leadership of this Red Sox fan masquerading as a New Yorker. 

Let me take you back in time.  First, almost one hundred years ago when the Port Authority was created.  It was created for one purpose and one purpose only; to build a cross harbor rail freight tunnel between NY & NJ.  Here we sit almost a century later and no tunnel.  Worse, the tunnel was alive and kicking again 10 years ago thanks to Rudy having revived the idea.  But Mayor-for-Life Mike, no fan of the tunnel, passed the buck from EDC to the PA and there it continues to languish.  The one and only thing the PA was supposed to do and it never has.  Bloomberg, the man who has made a disgusting beach of Times Square, all in the name of environmentalism, opposes the most green project in our lifetimes.  Namely, taking off our streets hundreds of trucks a day and moving their cargo on rail underground.  Could anything be more green than that?  No.  But he has done nothing.  

Second, go back a decade.  Rudy Giuliani told the PA to prepare to lose control of JFK and LaGuardia when their contract expired to run the airports.  JFK and LaGuardia rank consistently at the top of every list of worst airports in the United States.  One of the very first things Bloomberg did upon taking office was tell the PA he would renew the contracts.  Yea, the city got slightly better terms but the traveling public suffers and will in perpetuity.  Imagine, had Bloomberg been the innovator he pretends to be.  If he had privatized the airports like in his beloved London or most of Europe.  The cash windfall to the City would have been incredible and the improvement in infrastructure and service would have been commensurately impressive.  But no, the PA would and will continue to run NYC's airports.  Why?  I cannot imagine.

And now to present day and Ground Zero.  Again, for eight years, Mayor-for-Life Mike has consistently said,  this is a state issue, this is a Port issue.  He has shown no leadership on this matter whatsoever.  He gave millions to the the Memorial Fund.  Kudos to him for having done that.  But he can do that as a private citizen.  We need a Mayor, not a benefactor.

And now cynically, in an election year, he claims to have had an epiphany.  The interests of this bi-state agency don't coincide with those of New York City.  What Rudy Giuliani knew on the day he took office, Mayor-for-Life Mike claims to have discovered in his eighth year.  It is then not all that surprising that against the non-entity of non-entities, Bill Thompson, he musters only 53%.  I concede the point that he will be re-elected - or really elected since I do not believe this term limits extension was legal - but it is so bone crushingly disheartening to have to watch just how clueless and inept he continues to become.  The Great City deserves so much better than this for four, eight or twelve more years. 

{I wrote the above post prior to Port Authority Executive Director Chris Ward's speech today.  If you see the excerpts he really makes my point for me.  He's not modernizing LaGuardia or JFK because of Ground Zero.  He blames others for the PA having to commit so many resources there which is wreaking havoc with his capital budget.  He's right up to a point.  The PA shouldn't be running our airports and then they wouldn't factor into these equations.  They should never have retained control of Ground Zero after 9/11.  But the subtext to all this - if you are a student of NYC politics - is that Chris Ward is telling Mayor-for-Life Mike to go fuck himself.  He's saying very plainly that he's not afraid of him and unlike the Mayor, who seeks responsibility for nothing but our schools, Ward is willing, up to a point, to honestly debate his options.  I don't think he should have these options, but at this moment in time they are his responsibility.  What a contrast with Giuliani.  No PA Exec. Dir. would have dared challenge Rudy this way.  It would have been unthinkable.  And rightly so.  He's the Mayor. His priorities should govern, not some unelected body. God, Rudy would have punished Chris Ward; it would have been amazing to watch.  But Bloomberg will say something in response not commanding but peevish.  He doesn't really care about NYC or New Yorkers so these fights don't trouble him in his gut. He views them from the prism of his Napoleanic complex and not as the Chief Magistrate.}      
 

Searching For Mayor Giuliani

6/16    Old axiom - never speak in absolutes, it will come back to bite you in the ass.  While I give virtually no weight whatever to some flighty ex-flack for Rudy offering inside tidbits and getting the vapors over the prospect of an RWG run for Governor, I have to say the Democrats are doing everything but circulating his nominating petitions for him.  It sure looks like he may have no choice but to run.  A near guarantee of victory is a lulling thing.  If ex Mrs. Andrew Cuomo, Kerry Kennedy, is to be believed, Andrew ain't running.  I've always said without the power to indict and subpoena, Andrew's political cowardice is nearly unmatched. 

So if there is no Andrew, Gov. Paterson is a political eunuch, and the total disarray in Albany keeps up, who but the man who tamed the wild City can clean up the current mess?  Even I buy that rationale.  Right now we have three majority leaders of the NYS Senate.  Can you imagine?  Can Paterson fix this?  Surely not.  He's too concerned about how this is affecting the poor lobbyists.  Can Andrew - if he were so inclined to take on the Gov - fix this?  Nah.  He's never shown the courage to take on the established order when it meant a fight.  So who else?  Charlie Rangel won't let anyone else challenge Paterson.  So no Democrat will be allowed to save the state or party.  That leaves the Republicans.  And who can they field?  The return of Pataki?  Don't laugh.  But not while a living, breathing Rudy Giuliani is around.  Personally I am a John Faso fan.  But I don't think he can muster the charisma wattage necessary for this battle.  So once again all eyes turn to Rudy. 

Back in 89, the first year the NYC Campaign Finance Law had teeth, Rudy hired a large accounting and compliance staff.  They were very young Republicans from D.C.  They all had one thing in common - they hated, absolutely hated, New York City.  They couldn't wait to get back to Northern Virginia and the watering holes of Capitol Hill.  I always found this amusing.  That influx, coupled with Bond, Schriefer, Ailes and Teeter created a very alien and extremely Bush presence in what was supposed to be a gritty New York campaign.  He learned from his 89 mistakes when it came time to staff-up in 93 but forgot them again in time for 08. He once again turned to a President Bush for a campaign staff with the same results.  Sitting in prison in 07 I knew Rudy would go down in flames when I saw whom he was hiring; it was 89 all over again.  The amazing thing to me then was that none of his people could see that.

Ethicists, lawyers, bankers and insurers are known to speak of Moral Hazard.  The practice of rewarding past bad behavior.  Saving or bailing out a liable party without assurance that their actions will be different in the future.  My fear in the coming Giuliani frenzy is that his 07 & 08 behavior will go unrepented, he will have to atone for nothing and he will in effect be rewarded for it.  The man who opposes gay marriage - not because he believes in the position, I happen to know he has no firmly held view, but because he thinks upstate voters are one issue on this - now finds himself opposed by Joe Bruno and yes, the Dark Lord himself, Dick Cheney.  I told him here a few months ago it was an unwise position with no upside.  He was on the wrong side of history, I said.  But it was cynical and calculated.  The Rudy of 08 and not of 93.

The Albany Democrats may have handed Rudy the 2010 election, time will tell, it's still early days.  To me the waste is that he would not challenge Mayor-for-Life Mike.  Bloomberg's new poll numbers against Bill Thompson are good but it's clear the voters don't want a third term for him.  They just want a first Thompson term even less.  Can you imagine Mayor Giuliani issuing a deadline to rebuild Ground Zero and having everyone ignore him?  But we have come to expect this from Mayor-for-Life Mike.  Inept and ineffectual, that's him.  The one common thread here is leadership; Albany and New York City.  The last great leader in this state any of us can remember was Mayor Giuliani.  God, how I wish we could find him.

    You've Never Had it So Good

6/9    With apologies to Harold Macmillan, that phrase comes to mind today as the first Guantanamo "detainee" (prisoner) is transferred from Cuba to the United States.  Unfortunately for him, he is being moved to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Lower Manhattan (home to Mr. Madoff).  Having had a stay in the MCC, as I have previously mentioned, I can tell you that Mr. Ahmed Ghailani is in for a rude awakening.  The proponents of keeping Guantanamo open always fail to acknowledge that the vast majority of the prisoners there are guilty in all likelihood of nothing.  Two-thirds of all prisoners who have passed through there have been repatriated without a trial but after being incarcerated for years without charge.  These tours that the Army conducts showing how lush life is for the 'detainees' on the base always sicken me.  We know from the numbers that most of these men will eventually go home, wherever that is, and never be put on trial.  A prison is a prison whether you have a basketball court, Muslim food, access to a Koran, or they wind up putting in a spa.  Being held unjustly - without charge - as most of these men are, is criminal.  The irony is that all these members of congress who think Guantanamo is this magical place have no idea how much worse it will be for the "detainees" in Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody.   If they really want to seriously punish these guys close Guantanamo and send them to the MCC in solitary for a year.  That is far worse than any Guantanamo experience.  And yet American prisoners are subjected to it daily, all over the U.S., as part of the cruel administration of the BOP.  

It is almost laughable that North Korea and Iran will put suspects on trial - even if just show trials - but the U.S. refuses to grant suspects these same basic rights.  That is what we've been reduced to.  The sad part is that the "detainees" do not realize how much worse things are going to get for them inside the BOP compared with Guantanamo.  My positon has been the same on this matter for seven years; if they are guilty of something, put them on trial in the U.S.  We're tough enough to handle it.  If they're not, then set them free.  That is justice - or at least it used to be.  Reflecting back on his island stay from the filth of the MCC, Mr. Ghailiani will come to realize he never had it so good.



    Someone Is Listening

6/9    I just came across this piece on SLATE from the lovely Dahlia Lithwick, who has replaced Linda Greenhouse as my favorite Supreme Court reporter.  I can rant and rave on here all I want about prison reform, particularly federal prison reform, but nothing will happen until Congress forces the DOJ's hand.  So it appears that the ever surprising Sen. James Webb (D-VA) is a champion of this cause.  Who knew?  I encourage you to read this piece.  Cage Match


    Here We Go Again

6/8    Deja Vu.  Charlie Rangel - perhaps the most corrupt unindicted political figure in America - is throwing his racial Molotovs once again.  Peter Powers, Rudy's First Deputy Mayor, used to say his own management technique was, "we do what we know."  That appears to be the guiding principle behind Rep. Rangel's latest attempt at ensuring the success of another mediocre black Harlem pol.  On NY 1 the other night he said that an Andrew Cuomo primary against the failed governorship of David Paterson would lead to "racial polarization" and would be devastating to New York State Democrats.

You'll recall that during the primary of 2002, Rangel said that Cuomo should drop out of the governor's race against Carl McCall.  Carl McCall was the Bill Thompson of his time although with perhaps a bit more flash.  Well, Andrew heeded Rep. Rangel's advice and dropped out before the primary.  He did so presumably to save himself for another day.  There was, it was said, fence mending that needed to be done after that race between Andrew and black Democrats.  

Well here we are - another day.  Although Andrew finds himself in the unlucky position of having to achieve his aim by competing against another black man.  Back in 2002 he was told to drop out because "it was McCall's time."  Whatever that meant.  Also, as with David Dinkins, we were told it was time for a black man to be allowed to reach for the stars.  Now the excuse is that it would be treasonous to blacks or black democrats or the state party - I'm not really sure which - for Andrew to primary the sitting black governor.

I never bought into the whole mystique surrounding Obama and the triumph of the black man.  Instead, like Dr. King, I looked upon it as an amazing achievement of a very talented man - white or black, and applauded him for his tenacity, drive and intellect.  Hillary Clinton did exactly what she should have done.  She thought herself the best candidate, she ran and almost won.  She ceded nothing to him and I believe, in the end, he respected her for it.  It made his victory genuine instead of token.

But that's not good enough in New York State.  We have to rig our primaries lest the voters actually have a say.  And the strangeness of all this is that these admonitions are coming from the most corrupt man in elective office today.  Rangel cheats on his taxes, keeps affordable housing away from the economically disadvantaged and uses them for campaign lairs, lies on his federal disclosure forms and spend millions to create useless edifices to himself that his intense narcissism requires be branded in his own name.  And he is so powerful that no one will investigate him.  It is left to the newspapers to uncover his crimes.  But all without result.  No revelation seems to cause the slightest interest in any prosecutor.  Even the House, duty bound to investigate him, won't.

But he feels perfectly free to dictate to Andrew Cuomo how his conscience should behave.  Prior to attaining the power to subpoena and indict, Andrew was never known as a ballsy guy.  In fact, for all his Cuomo bravado, he was rather timid politically.  Bear in mind he would have beaten McCall in 2002 and yet he dropped out anyway.  So know here wo go again.  Rangel figured it worked once so he and the racial flamethrowers will try again.  Has Andrew learned anything in seven years?  We'll see. Giving in to bullys never works.  If Andrew were smart he'd open an investigation on Rangel and leave it hanging until 2010.  Trust me, with an easy indictment and conviction awaiting Rangel, he'd shut up.

    The Age of Obama

6/5    Nearly bumped into Mr. Carbonetti a few minutes ago.  I was walking down Vesey next to the Trade Center construction site and he was walking up.  Blue blazer, tan slacks and what looked suspiciously like the EDC umbrella I gave him so long ago.  I thought of saying hi - he didn't see me - but I figured too much water under the bridge.  I doubt he'd take a warm greeting from me as sincere; although it would have been.  I do miss him though.  Guess I always will.  Friends as close as brothers are a hard thing to lose.  They don't come along too often.

But missing Tony Carbonetti is not what brings me here today.  Fury and outrage are.  Although I am a firm opponent of racial quotas and affirmative action however practiced, I am always extremely reticent to begin sentences with, "Now if a white man said (or did)......."  It's not that I am cowed by liberal political correctness.  Rather, I fear being associated with imbecilic, half-literate, right wing, talk show hosts like Michael Savage or Marc Levin.  While I occasionally may agree with something they say, I loathe being joined in their company.  But I am making an exception today.  My anger has gotten the better of me.  I am not aware that either of them has commented on what I am about to mention.  But I am pretty sure they'd agree with me.

Imagine this: a white newspaper columnist - in addition to being an Ivy League professor - not only defends a white mob brutally beating a black man but states that future such beatings are a necessary way to redress a failed judicial system.  Can you imagine what would happen to this person?  Would he keep either of his jobs at the paper or the university?  You know the answer.

Apparently, in Philadelphia, an 11yo black girl was raped and brutally so.  The police named a "person of interest" that they were looking to question.  This person - not black - was discovered by an angry black mob and himself brutally beaten until the police stepped-in to stop it.  Now comes Marc Lamont Hill - Columbia Professor, regular columnist for the daily free NYC newspaper 'metro' and a contributor, I believe, to Fox News.  He writes a column in 'metro' that says he's saddened that the neighborhood felt it necessary to do what they did to this man but, "Until the broader society gets it, the community's brand of justice is both appropriate and necessary."  Necessary?  Appropriate?  The man named by the police was not a suspect, not accused, not convicted of anything - not that that would have justified the mob's behavior in any case.  He was, they were careful to say, a "person of interest."  

Mr. Lamont Hill wrote a column a few weeks ago comparing smokers with child rapists and serial killers.  He backtracked a few days later to say he meant chain smokers.  Nice save on his part.  If Mr. Lamont Hill is equating smokers with child rapists and according to him it's OK for  black mobs to beat or kill alleged white and Hispanic child rapists, does that mean it's OK for black mobs to attack and kill smokers?   Using his sick, twisted logic it doesn't seem too much of a stretch. 

If Mr. Lamont Hill wants to make speeches advocating this point of view I will take to the Web to defend his right.  If he wants to take out ads in the Times calling on black mobs to attack whites I will stand on the principle that he should be allowed to, however repugnant his views may be.  But what is this 'metro' newspaper doing paying him to advocate black-on-white/Hispanic violence?  It is shocking that he is not only a professor but an Ivy League one.  Less shocking is that he is employed at Columbia which has lately become a safe haven for black racists, anti-semites and Arab terrorist apologists.  Do the white and Hispanic parents of Columbia students know this man is teaching their children?  I can only imagine what the syllabus must look like for his classes.

The outrage here is not that he seems to be this century's Leonard Jeffries.  The outrage is that Leonard Jeffries wasn't paid by a daily newspaper to write about Ice and Sun people or by a major cable news channel to comment on the day's goings-on.  He was paid by a university, just as Mr. Lamont Hill is.  He had tenure however, I do not believe that Mr. Lamont Hill enjoys that honor yet.  Fox, 'metro', and Columbia really need to examine if they want this man on their payroll. 

If this type of incendiary rhetoric by someone seemingly in the mainstream of our society is what is meant by being in the "Age of Obama," then I truly want no part of it and neither should you.
 {I do not have a link to his column, but if you want a PDF of the whole thing, E-mail me and I will send it.}

5/28    First, a very Happy Birthday to this site's namesake.  Next, a number of you have written asking me for thoughts on the altercation in the Hamptons involving Rudy.  I have no comment.  I know what you know.  The alleged assailant seems kind of unbalanced to me, but who knows.  I don't, and never have, wished any harm to come to the Mayor.  It's his current ideas and philosophy I would like to see scrambled, not his face.  As of today the Mayor is officially a senior citizen.  It seems to me that at 65 his options for elective office are dwindling.  The 2010 race for NY Governor or maybe the 2012 presidential race and that's it.  Personally, the more I think about it, the more I think he should take the Jerry Brown route and run for NYS Attorney General.  He loves the law; its practice and nuances.  He's a law and order kind of guy, which is perfect for that job.  Moreover, like Louis Lefkowitz or Bob Morgenthau, he could hold the job in perpetuity; age would never become an issue.  He'd be great at it (too harsh for my tastes, I'm sure).  Being NYS AG involves you in so many different and varied aspects of the law; look at the huge exposure Spitzer and Cuomo get, involving themselves in large national issues. He'd remain relevant in the national debate.   I think at this point in his life nothing would provide him with a greater sense of fulfillment.   But I sense the call to destiny and the seeming letdown in status would prevent this run.  But what do I know.  Anyway, Happy 65, Mr. Mayor.



5/20    As promised, the brief background on how the '93' campaign attempted to remove the New York Times reporter covering RWG. New Post:  All The News.... 

5/18    As promised, the conclusion to GOV'T SHUTDOWN.

 

5/18    Please see '5/18 Updates' for info about this site.


5/15 - Here is my reaction to the smear against me in yesterday's New York Times.  New Post: Smeared by the NYT  

 

5/20    LOOKING BACKWARDS

I really don't get Barack Obama.  He decries - more and more forcefully - the national security policies of the Bush Administration and yet will do nothing to fully enlighten the nation on what went on for the past eight years.  He declared today that he is against a national truth commission inquiry stating, "our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability."  But there's the paradox: he will not permit or endorse those institutions proceeding lawfully with uncovering the truth.  Congress wants to establish a 9/11 style commission to explore and report on torture and surveillance excesses.  Obama is opposed.  In a pending court matter the ACLU is trying to have torture photos released.  Obama was for and now he's opposed, saying today that it would, "inflame anti-American opinion."  The Justice Department will issue a report shortly that does not call for any criminal prosecutions of the Bush Administration officials who concocted and condoned the criminal torture policies. 

So as the Obama Administration is fast becoming George Bush's chief enabler who, what and where are the "existing democratic institutions" that are supposed to provide this accountability?  It's not the Justice Department.  It's not the courts; Obama will block any attempt to access info, that now seems clear.  It's not Congress; he won't support their commission - which does not mean that they can't move forward without him.  Obama keeps saying let's move forward, not look back.  History, Univ. of Chicago Prof. Obama should know, is a study of the past.  We study the past to try and apply those lessons/outcomes to the present and future.  We don't know what went on in the Bush Administration.  Dick Cheney's room-size safes contain all those answers.   We know, most of us, that from what we do know that we don't like what went on.  But I, as a citizen, can't make a rational informed decision about my country's future without knowing what was done in my name and by my government for the past eight years.  No democracy can move forward on those terms.

I just can't fathom whether Obama really believes the things he's doing or he's nervous politically.  If he's changed his mind, then he's as inexperienced and untested as his opponents claimed in 08.  If he's calculating politically, then he's a craven sell-out to the internet base that funded and supported him.  All I know is the nation needs, wants and deserves answers.  At this rate, President Obama is laying a  foundation for the George Bush Library at SMU far better than any mason will ever pour.

5-18    TC - Farewell & Good Luck

Two weeks ago someone sent me an anonymous e-mail informing me that Tony Carbonetti was leaving Giuliani Partners to go work for Ken Langone.  He was telling me this to reinforce his belief that Rudy wasn't running for governor.  This anonymous writer used the non-de-plume of a dead friend and former Liberal Party Executive Director, Carl Grillo.  I have no idea why he did that.  I didn't mention it on here because I don't trade in gossip especially from unknown sources.  But, as it turned out, this person was correct.  In addition to working for Ken Langone Tony is setting up a consulting business with a former Karl Rove henchman to help hedge funds maneuver in the forthcoming regulatory tangle.

First, let me say I wish Tony all the best.   I have no doubt he will succeed in this as he has in everything he has done.  My guess is, however,  that there is something behind this departure.  I have many guesses, but no facts.  I doubt it's a Giuliani rupture between the two and lean more towards the notion that Giuliani Partners is in real trouble financially.

But this exit and the way I found out about it got me thinking.  Many of you don't know that Carl Grillo was the closest thing Tony had to a mentor.  Ironic that Tony has become this confidante and facilitator of the extreme right while Carl was a shlubby, left activist who was despised by the Republican Party on Staten Island, his home and base.  Tony loved Carl like family and I know Carl was very proud of how far Tony went and how gifted he became.

Carl Grillo was the one who taught Tony the mechanics and nuances to campaign field operations and also taught him the ins and outs of professional casino gambling.  After Carl passed away it was Tony who rammed through the naming of a new section of the S.I. Botanical Gardens over the vehement objections of Staten Island Republicans.  Carl had a fantastic garden, that he tended himself, in the backyard of his house.

What this got me thinking was what Carl would think of where Tony's life has taken him and where he's heading.  Tony knew Carl more intimately than I did from their frequent long weekends at the blackjack tables in Atlantic City.  But I knew Carl for decades before Tony did.  Carl was a true believer in liberal policy, not just politics.  In the Liberal Party he was much more the ideologue to Ray Harding's pragmatist.  As Ray would say, " He actually believes in this shit."  Carl loved winning, no doubt about that.  But to him you ran races to accomplish policy aims.  You supported candidates who wanted to do something to improve people's lives.  I don't think Tony ever knew that side of Carl but it was always there since his days as a very young Liberal Party activist.  It's unfortunate that Tony never understood that side of Carl and learned the positive lessons of why we do what we do; those of us who practice the political art. 

What would Carl think?  I feel I know.  He would be very impressed that Tony is a millionaire many times over.  He would be proud that Tony found someone as good as Carol and that, from what I have heard, they have a beautiful family.  He would admire the skills in business that Tony has acquired over the last seven years.  But, he would be deeply disappointed that Tony is putting these skills to the purposes that he is.  He would be saddened to know that Tony intends to spend his years helping hedge fund billionaires evade taxes and avoid regulations.  He would be truly horrified that Tony's befriended those who condone and initiate torture and illegal surveillance.  Carl would have spent his last breath fighting everything the Bush Administration stood for and did.  Tony could never have made him understand how supporting him and his friends was anything close to moral.  

Sadly, somewhere in Heaven, Carl is looking down and shedding a tear at these developments; that money and power have so corrupted someone who has infinite gifts and talents.  As I said, I wish Tony well.   But it pains me that his is a life and promise that is rapidly being squandered.  What I wish for Tony more than anything else is to find the candidate out there who excites him the way Rudy once did and help that person win.  Whether it be Mayor, Senator or some Assemblyman in Wisconsin.   Get back in the arena and make a real difference.  Find the passion and innocence for the game you used to have before money, fame, power and cynicism turned you into a hedge fund shill.

5/15 - I promised earlier today to post a piece on the battle during the 93 Giuliani-Dinkins campaign to have the NYT  replace its reporter covering RWG.  I apologize.  I ran out of time today.  It's a short piece and I will have it up by Wednesday.

 

5/14/09 - Well here it is, The Big Rudy piece.  I welcome your reactions. 
GOV'T SHUTDOWN 

                 

 

4/23/09 - Here is the new post, the continuing series on my case - J'ACCUSE  PART VI

5/5/09 -  MR. SCHLAFLY?

I feel compelled to write about something I saw this past weekend in the wedding section of the paper. Not my usual beat.  It was the the marriage of Howard Koeppel to Mark Hsaio.  I knew Mark and Howard back in the day.  I lived 2 blocks from them.  I took a car of mine to Howard's dealership for repairs and he generously gave me a loaner each time I had to leave it overnight.  I have to say though that I found Howard off-putting because of his habit of hitting on me and making endless double entendre.  He did it to lots of guys and I don't really think he meant anything by it, it was just his manner.  I finally had to tell him once sternly to cut it out.  I was never sure what bothered me so much about it: was it the inappropriateness of it or more likely the fact that by hitting on me, even playfully, people might think I was gay, which was something I was desperate to conceal.  I can't say.

Howard and Mark made a nice couple.  Mark is a sweet guy; goodhearted and seemingly without guile.  It was extremely decent and generous of them to have taken Rudy into their home for what was probably two years.  Rudy didn't have much money back then and to have to shell out a few thousand a month for an apartment would have been a strain if not an impossibility.  There were lots of developers who would gladly have given him a place rent free but as he was mayor that would have been unthinkable.  So Mark & Howard played landlord, friend, shoulder, and safe haven.  Bear in mind that Rudy lived there for part of the time he was dealing with his cancer.

So it is inconceivable to me that he would refuse to attend their wedding this past weekend in Connecticut.  I just can't get my head around such poor manners and ingratitude.  I have been to dozens of Catholic services: weddings, funerals, confirmations, memorials, and I agree with very little of Church doctrine, why would I, I'm Jewish.  But my presence didn't confirm anything other than respect to whatever the proceeding happened to be.  So if the newspapers are correct, Rudy committed three appalling acts: he didn't attend, he had an aide inform Howard that he wasn't attending (rather than making the call himself) and he did it at the last minute.  I want to shake him and say: you were raised better than this.  Rudy, notwithstanding his public persona, used to be the king of the magnanimous gesture.  Early in his mayoralty he never minded the hostile audience or the backlash.  That changed over time, it's natural with power.  But he was at his best when he put himself out there.

What would cause him to behave this shamefully?  One of three things.  He and Howard have had a falling out over the years.  My understanding is that they are not close as they were but there has not been a serious falling out.  Next, Judith - for reasons that can only be Judith's - didn't want Rudy to go.  I give this some credence.  There's a whole psychology at work with Judith when it comes to those years that Rudy was dating her and still married to Donna.  One would think she would be grateful to Howard for putting Rudy up in his home that allowed him to continue this liaison.  But my guess is he's a reminder of the period when she was not "legitimate."  The third reason is possibly political.  This would be the most unforgivable reason if that's what it was.  What exactly is in these advisor's heads over at 5 Times Square?  Do they really think New York is North Carolina?  Do they think they're still running for something that North Carolinians have a say about or ever will?  The idea of embracing, rather than fleeing, from what I have dubbed the Randy Levine strategy of positioning Rudy to the hard-right, is madness in New York State in 2009. 

All this has done is to make Rudy look like Phyllis Schlafly.  Mrs. Schlafly is the type of person who would refuse to attend the wedding ceremony of gay friends (not that she would ever have any) on principle.  It looks mean and calculating.  Is Tony Carbonetti getting this advice from Karl Rove - the man who put anti-gay marriage amendments on state ballots in order to bring out the base - that this is a winning position?  Because he's wrong.  The national approval numbers on gay marriage are going up.  It is now the majority opinion of New Yorkers and only will increase before 2010.  And if Rudy is going to make a moral or religious argument for his position, all i can say is give me a break.  He married his cousin, cheated on his second wife first with an aide and then with his third wife.  I, along with the rest of New York, will not be requiring morality instruction from Rudy Giuliani. 

Hard,tough, unforgiving Rudy - Rudy the Prosecutor - was what we all spent the 1993 campaign trying to erase; to show his humanity to the electorate.  This notion that attending a gay wedding will make him lose Chemung County is crazy.  If I am wrong about everything I've just said and it was a simple matter that Rudy had to be in Zurich giving a long planned speech, better he say so publicly than leave the impression that he really is this aloof, cold, ungrateful person we're all perceiving him to be.  Even at the risk of offending 8 people in Elmira.

 

4/29/09 - Please see the new post on last night's presidential press conference and the dangers of The Big Lie.

  

4/24/09 - RUDY & TORTURE

Every day seems to bring more news that is just not good for Rudy.  Events keep reminding us that he is not part of the future but rather part of our past. I have to admit I am at a total loss as to what everyone is so worked up about regarding torture.  Does the minutiae of all these memos really matter except for figuring out to whom the indictments should be addressed?  I have been railing on this subject for a long time.  It's wrong and should never have been permitted.  John Yoo should be banned from teaching or appearing at any institution of learning in this country right before he's indicted for conspiracy.  That goes for Addintgton, Gonzalez, Bibey, Cheney, Ashcroft and probably a dozen others.  These men were clearly what Hannah Arendt had in mind when she spoke of 'The Banality of Evil.'

Does the fact that someone was waterboarded 83 or 183 times really shock you more than the fact that we're doing it at all?  It shouldn't.  Condi Rice apparently lied to a Senate Committee.  Shocking?  I'm shocked, you're shocked. It would be more entertaining to find the instances where she didn't lie over the last eight years than when she did. 

A senior Justice Department official, Jay Bibey, lies by omission to the Senate Judiciary Committee in order to speed his judicial confirmation.  All regarding torture.  Surprised?  These people may in fact be without morals; many may be truly evil, but they are not stupid - they knew what they were doing was wrong and certainly not within the limits of constitutional government.  Hence the need to conceal and deceive.

Obama could not be more out of touch in his instinct to forgive and forget.  We are punishing John Demanjuk 50+ years after the fact because we do not want anyone to forget or minimize what he and others like him did and stood for.  This generation cannot let the Bush years pass without clear, firm and legal denunciations of what transpired.  This ridiculous notion that Bibey, Yoo et al. just gave legal opinions and there is no basis for holding someone accountable for a legal opinion is fanciful.  The Wansee Conference was a day-long legal opinion.  Who would argue those men weren't responsible?

The sanctioning of torture by Yoo, Bibey, et al., lead to mostly innocent people being viciously abused; first by the CIA then by the Army.  It became easier to do as more people gave ascent and more participated in performing these acts.  From seasoned CIA interogators down to lowly Army grunts.  The conspiracy widened and became presumably less illegal because more men willingly joined.  Soon an industry formed around this: Bagram, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, probably a dozen secret CIA prisons, not to mention rendering suspects to counties where we knew they'd be tortured.  You still think my Third Reich analogy is far off the mark?  What would have happened had none of this been revealed or US Courts intervened?  How far would this have gone?  Certainly the Bush-Cheney doctrine on this subject does not preclude these practices being performed on US citizens with no constitutional protections.  Would there have been foreseeable limits?

The nation's comfort level with this subject is changing fast.  The release of these documents has not only put their defenders on the defensive it has made their position indefensible.  Watch the TV talk shows and see how difficult it's become for pro-torture advocates to defend themselves once their questioner starts reading the memos out-loud.  The country's view on this is becoming more moral and humane. People who took opposing views have a lot to answer for now. This is not about show trials, it's about accountability.

What you may ask does any of this have to do with Rudy Giuliani?  Simple.  Google 'Giuliani & Torture.'  Read Rudy's views on torture and watch the video of his debate responses to waterboarding.  It's kinda scary, mainly in his flippancy towards the subject.  But this was back in 2007 when he thought his campaign was going somewhere and he hadn't stopped that horrible practice of giggling all the time and at the most inappropriate moments.

Remember the Defense Dept memo that approved enhanced interrogation techniques and the Rumsfeld note on the bottom about how limiting standing to 4 hours seemed lax to him since he stands 8 hours a day?  Well watch Rudy's response to the waterboarding question and his answer will creep you out.  Like Rumsfeld, who compared torture to working in an office, Rudy compares torture with campaigning for President - and laughs.  The point I am making is that this whole subject is no longer glib.  Those Bush-worn phrases like "the evildoers" or "the terrorists" - designed to simultaneously obfuscate, confuse and widen the known threat in order to numb our innate response to torture - don't work anymore.  This is another example of what I have been saying for months.  Namely, that Rudy cannot move on until he settles the past 7 years.  When asked about these issues Rudy will, no doubt, instinctively defend Bush and Cheney.  He'll mention his years at Justice and how it would be wrong to hold people there accountable.  All these answers, while perhaps sincere, will play terribly with the changing  public mood on this subject.  They will, however, play with the ever decreasing fringe that Rudy seems determined to market himself to.  If the folks at 5 Times Square continue to allow this Rudy to be Rudy the 2010 campaign will be over a lot sooner than they expect.

 


4/21/09 - Here are some thoughts on Rudy's poll numbers, his possible entry into the Governor's race and where he needs to go from here.   New post:   The High Water Mark



4/20/09 - 

The New York Times on Saturday published an editorial about the need for more 'resources' for the Justice Department in fighting financial white collar crime.  Congress has a bill, The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009.  It would appropriate $490 million for more prosecutors, agents and analysts to detect, investigate and prosecute financial misdeeds.  The Times says that's not enough and any expenditures will pay for itself in found ill-gotten gains.  Naturally a big government newspaper like the Times believes it's not enough.  The NYT has never been the house organ for fiscal responsibility; either in government or its own company.  It is bewildering to me that in this time of severe fiscal calamity, no one ever, ever asks - Is the Justice Department apportioning its resources wisely?  Are its prosecutors overwhelmed because their workload is too big or rather just too much?

The Justice Department could free up resources - and a lot of them - immediately if it, or Congress, took some simple steps.  First, stop prosecuting essentially state crimes in federal court.  I have said over and over again that the proliferation of federal criminal statutes mirroring state ones has lead to this huge increase in the number of federal prosecutions, incarcerations and federal prisons.  It's not that there is more crime, it's rather that the feds are prosecuting the same crimes that were tried in state court instead in federal court.  Federal prosecutors routinely force and bully state and local prosecutors to turn over cases residing in local prosecutors' offices and instead claim federal jurisdiction.  It is needless and inexplicable.  Not to mention much, much more costly in time and dollars.  Bear in mind that after 9/11 Justice was given a large increase in dollars and manpower because it was assumed that the influx of terrorist cases would overwhelm it.  Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Yoo, Addington, Cheney, Bush, et al, decided instead that a constitutional process was too quaint and time-consuming.  So all those cases never materialized at Justice; they went to Guantanamo.  But the dollars and staff remained.  That's why I served time with pot smokers and small time arsonists.

Secondly, the Justice Department needs to clean up the US Attorneys section and force it to prioritize its workload.  I have said before that unlike states that are constrained by shrinking budgets - in this case often a good thing - the feds never have to consider that and treat every single case as though it were a major terrorist investigation, of which they have virtually none.  Not every investigation and prosecution has to be dragged on for months and years and lead to the maximum number of charges and sentence.  Some things are disposed of better through negotiation and plea with reasonable accommodations.  And how often do you hear of a federal investigation resulting in no charges?  It happens so rarely that it is big news when it does.  The Justice Department is simply incapable of saying we looked and found nothing really criminal.  They will always find something in the end to justify their lengthy and costly investigation, even if - as we have seen in the few terrorist cases Justice has - the charges have nothing to do with the original investigation; just something to rationalize to the bosses at Justice and Congress why years and millions have been spent.

It's wrong and dangerous to continue prosecuting people this way.  Rather than giving Justice more money, their budget should be severely cut.  Make them go through the same management exercise every other law enforcement agency in the states has to endure.  They can't have every item be the highest priority.  That is a contradiction in terms.  When times change priorities do as well and you make adjustments.  But Justice and Sens. Leahy and Grassley say no, Justice need not refrain from prosecuting pimps in Louisiana or pot smokers in California.  It's all equally important.  We need to give them nearly half a billion dollars more so that they can keep on prosecuting state crimes.  You would think the wastefulness of all this, the disruptive cruelty to defendants lives and the budget deficit would finally cause these people to stop and reexamine the way they do business.  But no.  I think Rick Perry is a kook too, but maybe I will have to start reassessing that.  This system just doesn't work anymore.

4/15/09    The prescience of these posts lately reminds me of that Albert Brooks line from 'Broadcast News' - "I say it here and it comes out there."  First, a number of weeks ago I predicted that Mayor-for-Life Mike would buy the endorsements of the Independence and Republican parties.  Further, I said he would not obtain the Working Families Party's endorsement.  Three for three.  Now you don't have to have spent a lifetime toiling in the vineyards of NYC politics to have seen that coming.  But still, the Republican county chairs just 4 weeks ago were near unanimous that he was not going to be on the party's ballot line this November.  So I deserve a tiny bit of credit for my gazing. 

The size of the checks he will be handing out to these guys for their endorsements must be staggering to the average mortal.  As I have said before, when candidate Bloomberg went to see Ray Harding in the Winter of 2001, seeking the Liberal Party endorsement, he promised him the moon: he would bankroll the Liberal Party, transfer business to Ray's law firm and keep and increase Liberal hires in City Government.  One truism in politics is that people will go to much greater lengths to retain power than they ever would have to obtain it in the first place.  Given that, I say again, Mike-for-Life Mike must have been like Ed McMahon swooping down from Publishers Clearing House with a giant check.  No more stale pizza and bridge tables for the Queens or Kings County GOP HQs.  It is all the deluxe treatment from here on out. 

There is probably not a single thing in the platform of the Working Families Party I agree with, but I will give them credit.  Bill Thompson will lose just as surely as George Bush cannot pronounce the word 'Nuclear'.  Yet they will endorse him because he matches up ideology-wise with them.  They could, I believe, figure out some way to hedge and endorse Mayor-for-Life Mike and collect the windfall due all his faithful.  But they've chosen not to and I gotta respect that a little.

The second item I mentioned a few weeks ago that seems to have gotten some action was the issue of 'Sexting".  I mentioned that unless people developed some common sense and realized there was in fact nothing that could be done about this, we would continue to prosecute and register as sex offenders 13 year old girls and boys.  Well the progressive state legislators in Burlington have taken action.  They are debating a bill that would legalize 'Sexting'.  Vermont would legalize Sexting between consenting youngsters between the ages of 13-18.  Someone referred to it as a "perverted form of courtship."  Maybe, but it's not going anywhere.  I still don't think the acknowledgment of realities goes far enough, however.  Say a 17yo HS senior Sexted her 19yo freshman college boyfriend - serious, serious crime under that law.  It's OK, under this legislation, for two 13yos to pass nude pictures of themselves back and forth over a phone, but not between a 17yo and a 19yo?  We're still not at the full extent of real world practicality yet.  But I give Vermont huge credit for doing this.  I have no doubt the crazies from law enforcement and child welfare groups will pillory the members of the legislature who vote for this.  But it's a great first step. 

 

4/7/09    New Post - A few thoughts about Rudy, Giuliani Partners & the 2010 race.  See: What To Do About Rudy?
 

 

4/3/09    NEW POST - Please see:  SENATE DAYS - Part II

3/23/09  NEW POST - Please see:  J'ACCUSE - Part V.

 

4/2/09       LESSONS FROM ALASKA

            I am concerned that the public is taking away the wrong lessons from the outrageous behavior by the Justice Department in the Ted Stevens case.  Not the request for dismissal by AG Holder, I commend that.  You can be damn sure that Ashcroft, Gonzalez and Mukasey would never have publicly admitted these failures and conceded defeat.  They would have continued covering this up.  No, that isn't the lesson I am speaking of.  First, the papers and airways are inundated with former federal prosecutors - and doesn't it seem that 1/2 of America is a former federal prosecutor - claiming that while this is shameful it is also rare.  Bullshit.  Common sense and the facts tells us that the only reason we know about any of this is because Ted Stevens had a top notch legal team headed by "I'm not a potted plant" Brendan Sullivan and was very lucky to have had a fair judge; something that is rare in the federal courts.  This sort of abuse is rife in the federal system.  Anyone who has been prosecuted by the feds knows how proud the Justice Department is of its 97% conviction rate.  The reason for that astronomically high rate is that US Attorneys all over the country bring to bear enormous resources that virtually no defendant, including Innocent ones, can withstand.  Most defendants plead guilty because they cannot match resources and federal guidelines mandate ridiculous amounts of prison time.  So an offer of a plea deal to a lesser sentence, than might otherwise be achieved at trial, gains them a victory.  I met many people in prison who pled guilty only because the time they were facing at trial would be 30 years, if found guilty, and the plea offer was for 5.  I read many of their cases and became convinced of their innocence.  But they knew they couldn't fight the feds.

In my own case, what should have taken a junior lawyer and a competent secretary 8 weeks to investigate ended up taking three years, millions of dollars and thousands of hours of inter-agency manpower.  The reason?  Unlike states and cities that have actual budgets that require balance and restraint, the federal government has unlimited spending.  There is in fact a great value to tight budgets.  In the case of District Attorneys there has to be some process for prioritizing their cases.  They cannot afford a full hammer and tongs trial and investigation into every matter that comes before them.  It forces them to examine their cases much closer to weed out those deserving of the full treatment.  No such governor exists in the federal system.  With totally unlimited resources, every case is treated the same.  Some argue that's a good thing.  And in the old days when there were actually very few federal criminal laws - remember the original meaning of the phrase "let's not make a federal case out of this" - it may have been worthy to prosecute most cases fully.  But now Congress has passed statutes that mirror nearly every state crime.  There is virtually nothing that cannot be prosecuted in federal court, which 30 years ago was not the case.  The full and massive weight of the US Justice Department is brought down on smaller and more trivial matters daily.  But the resources never diminish.  US Attorneys are willing to bring the same blowtorch response to a petty arson case as to a complex securities fraud.  They make no distinction because they don't have to.

The second missed lesson in all this is the terrible and growing overuse of the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department.  I ask you to Google 'public officials and corruption.'  Nearly every case of malfeasance by a public official these days is being brought by the US Justice Department.  I have very, very serious misgivings about this and so should you.  Forgetting the whole 10th Amendment issue, what is the national interest - and that's what a prosecution by the federal government represents - in some small town mayor taking kickbacks?  When you are indicted by the feds the indictment reads, "The United States of America vs. ______."  Inherent in that is a notion that this crime, this indictment, has meaning and resonance for people everywhere in this country.  When everyone's golden boy, Patrick Fitzgerald, went after Rod Blagoievic I asked myself: why do I as a citizen of New York have any interest in the back room deals of the Governor of Illinois?  The answer is I don't.  There was and is no evidence that Illinois is some backwater, corrupt state unwilling to investigate or prosecute their officials; which might give some reason to federal involvement.  If Fitzgerald found something, the proper thing to do was to turn it over to that states attorney general or even to the legislature for possible removal from office.  The arrogance in refusing to turn over documents to the legislature during impeachment because it might hinder his investigation was breathtaking.  In a democratic society the remaining tenure in office of the highest elected official of the state and that debate by its elected representatives clearly takes precedence over any criminal prosecution.  The minute Fitzgerald raised the slightest issue of turning over those documents the legislature should have been in court suing him.  Not a snowball's chance in hell would they have lost.  But they, like all states these days, cowered in the face of federal involvement.  

Having worked for the 107th Mayor of New York, I think back to the 96th, Jimmy Walker.  He was surely a corrupt official of one of the nation's largest cities.  There was very little secret about that.  But his downfall and removal played out as it should have, by act of the responsible state officials.  When FDR had enough he appointed the Seabury Commission to investigate Tammany corruption at City Hall and that was the beginning of the end for Mayor Walker who eventually sailed away to Europe.  His actions were dealt with correctly as an internal NYS matter to be handled by the appropriate and constitutionally designated agents.  

In White Plains Federal Court the other day a woman was found guilty of using her office as a town commissioner to steer some housing work to her boyfriend.  It was local corruption - favors for friends - in its most basic form.  Did this rise to the level of a federal prosecution???  Do people in Alaska have a vested interest in the clean running of this Westchester town's government?  Yes, there were federal funds involved because it involved housing , but the state could have prosecuted this matter on a whole host of grounds without that nexus.   And besides, in a 3 1/2 trillion dollar budget what don't federal funds touch?   If federal funds are the excuse for prosecution then nothing can be exempt when it is now 25% of our economy. There is also no question that the prosecution cost double and triple the amount alleged to have been misspent.  A state prosecutor would have achieved the same result at a much more reasonable cost.  And now this woman will travel all over the United States, at an added cost, in serving her sentence for malfeasance in some small suburban town in NY.

Be assured if the Justice Department can so flagrantly abuse the rights of Ted Stevens, a sitting United States Senator, one can only imagine how brazenly they trample the rights of poor defendants out of the spotlight on a daily basis.  It should worry and concern all of us.

 

4/1        SEXTING

 

Here is the dictionary definition of the word 'exploit': "to use selfishly for one's own ends...to advance or further through exploitation, promote".  I am sure you've read about this girl in NJ who was arrested and is to be charged with promoting, creating and distributing child pornography for sending her boyfriend nude pictures of herself via her cellphone; referred to in the vernacular as 'sexting'.  She was turned into the police by the Center for Missing and Exploited Children.  Since I first read about this I have been confused about one thing.  Who is exploiting this girl?  So far the only party I can see exploiting her for their own ends is the Center for Missing and Exploited Children.  They've ruined her life all in the name of making a point.   Like all these groups, MADD, the anti-smoking zealots, and many of these foundations that seek to help children, they all end up becoming extremists, incapable of reason or sane argument.  21 year old drinking age?  It is only leading to more underage drinking, college binging, and drinking and driving by youth.  Every indicator over the last 25 years demonstrates it.  Tougher smoking laws?  Crime in the area of illegal cigarette trafficking is skyrocketing.  We can't find funding for poor children's health care in this country without tobacco revenue apparently, but at the same time repressive smoking laws with no scientific basis are promulgated and passed routinely.  And now we have a new phenomenon.  I first read about this in Dahlia Lithwick's column in Newsweek a few months ago.  Teenagers using phones and PDAs to take and send sexual pictures of themselves to friends.

Law enforcement, as usual, is perplexed how to handle this since it doesn't comport to the norms they've been taught.  It's not the Russian mob or seedy men in trenchcoats forcing youngsters to pose.  It's free-spirited - likely not very intelligent - teenagers having fun with technology.  The basis of all these laws on child pornography is predicated on one fundamental rationale: kids who pose for nude pictures are forced to do so and further, could not consent anyway. But what happens when the kids take the pictures and send them to other kids all in the name of good fun? 

The logic of these arguments has been reduced to this:  it's OK for 14yos to have sex, in fact the school will provide them with the condoms and teach them how to use them.  We will absolutely not prosecute them for that.  But for a 14yo boy or girl to send a picture of the act to his/her partner is a major state and federal crime.  I fully get to many if not most people in this country that makes perfect sense.  Many people will argue it is OK for a 14yo girl to have an abortion.  Some will argue she should be able to terminate the fetus without the knowledge or consent of her parents.  But apparently those very same people say she does not have the right to knowingly and willfully take a picture of herself and share it.  The ownership of her body only extends so far as to major and traumatic medical procedures but not a Kodak moment.

The argument I made recently about Harvey Milk and Proposition 6 is exactly on point in this case.  Of course most people in their hearts believe it's completely insane to arrest, prosecute, imprison and register this 14yo girl as a sex offender.  But where is the chorus of voices saying so?  Where are the newspapers editorializing for saner laws?  It is exactly what I said last week.  They are silent because the zealots will label them pedophiles, perverts or child haters if they speak rationally and sensibly. 

Why have we become so obsessed with law enforcement as the answer to every problem.  Don't parents have a right to weigh-in?  If the police inform this 14yos' parents what she's doing, shouldn't they ultimately be responsible for her discipline in a matter such as this?  And if they decide that it's harmless - they don't care - who is to tell these parents that they're wrong?    We have become so used to interceding in what are basically private matters that we cannot stop ourselves. 

It is so sad in this country when we reach the point - and we reached it a long time ago - that you cannot stare idiocy in the face and label it such.  Law enforcement is now wracking its brains as to how not to treat this girl as a child pornographer without creating a loophole.  Without saying: OK, sometimes nude pictures of kids aren't criminal.  Does anyone believe that with tens of millions of horny teenagers armed with camera phones and PDAs, that there is some way to stop this?  Do you really think the average teen who would send nude pictures of themselves in the first place, is going to be deterred by an abstract notion of prison or registration?  For God's sakes, that is the premise of the death penalty and we know empirically that was never a deterrent.  If an adult doesn't pause in his actions to avoid death, do we really believe immature and horny teens are going to reflect on the long term consequences?

So here we are.  I don't know what will happen to this girl.  My guess is that she'll get a slap on the wrist and be forced into some sort of "treatment".  The long term band-aid approach will go in one of two directions.  Either these crazy advocacy groups will call on the major phone carriers to start screening photos sent over phones, thereby breaching another wall of privacy, in the name of protecting children.  Or the police will adopt the Army's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.  Cops desperately don't want to know about this sexting business because it can only produce bad headlines for local police like the ones in NJ.  They would much prefer not to know that kids are doing this, since there is no way to prevent it or to prosecute without looking foolish.

I hope someone forms a new organization to help teens from being exploited by huge national organizations intent on preventing their exploitation.  I'll be interested to see which way this goes.  The answer of course depends on whether sane people of conscience speak truth to zealotry.

REASON # 1,012 WHY WE NEED A NEW MAYOR

3-30-09    When I am wrong, I am the first one to admit it.  Based on David Seifman's piece in this weekend's NY Post I was clearly wrong when I said  Mayor-for-Life Mike sat silent on the issue of the MTA budget mess because he had no interest in asserting himself.  According to Seifman, it was not because he did not care - although I maintain that he doesn't - it was rather because he is so hated in the state capital that he cannot lobby or travel there on behalf of NYC issues. 

Yup.  It's astounding.  Can you in living memory recall a Mayor of New York City so despised by the legislature that the mere mention of his name would instantly doom legislation?  Don't say Giuliani, because I know that was never true of him.  He had his disagreements with Silver, Weprin, Marino & Bruno but never to the point that it effected the City's ability to lobby and influence NYC legislation.  We certainly lost some battles but Rudy never sat out the fight.

If Seifman's sources are to be belived Mayor-for-Life Mike didn't intervene publicly or privately, travel to Albany, or speak out sooner because his voice would have only made things worse for New York City.  Now ask yourselves this question: are we really going to re-elect a mayor who cannot call legislators or travel to Albany to push for the interests of New Yorkers because he is universally loathed?  It appears we are and I say for the 50th time; I cannot understand it.

3/27/09    UPDATE

A little Friday update.  Some of you complained that I removed old posts and thoughts from the HOME Page.  I was trying to clean things up a bit and make it more navigable.  But I am if anything responsive, so I created a new post called, "Old Musings" and bundled them there.  I have been flooded with e-mails about J'ACCUSE - Part V.  Thank you all for your thoughts.  In the days ahead, be on the lookout for J'ACCUSE - Part VI, Senate Days II, a piece on Cristyne Lategano and as always the countdown continues.  For those of you new to the site, the number in the upper right hand corner reflects the days until I post the big Rudy story.  Expectations seem high for it.  I think you'll enjoy reading it, it's the longest piece to be published.  Have a nice weekend.  RAH 

3/25/09   FILLING THE VOID

Read today's newspapers and you will witness the ultimate in leadership abrogation:  Mayor-for-Life Mike calling on the citizens to call someone and say something.  Where to start?  Leaders can and have asked voters to call on legislatures for action.  But they do it only as a single tool in an arsenal.  Ronald Reagan did it effectively many times to pass his budgets and tax cuts.  But he NEVER took to the airwaves in support of nothing and asked his fellow Americans to merely vent at someone.  Imagine the fool he would have looked had he done that.

This was a very calculated move on Mayor-for-Life Mike's part.  He waited until the last minute, offered no leadership of his own and then like an irate idiot taxpayer yelling "I pay your salary" at an elected official, he behaves like some common helpless Joe importuning his fellow Joes to yell at someone. 

Back in the real fiscal crisis of the 70's we had a mayor who was in over his head.  I have great respect for Abe Beame - I got to know him slightly during the Giuliani years - but he was not up to the tremendous task that faced the Mayor of New York in 74, 75, and 76.  So Providence lent a hand.  Hugh L. Carey was elected governor in 1974 and filled the leadership void left by the Beame Administration.  I won't bore those of you too young to remember of the greatness of the early Carey years.   But Hugh Carey didn't care about credit or avoiding the blame that attaches to bold action.  The city was in deep trouble and was compounding the serious trouble the state was already in.   So he took Beame by the hand; forged unprecedented coalitions, devised unique funding solutions and also inflicted necessary fiscal pain.

Now we have as inept a governor as we may well witness in this or any lifetime; an accident of history.  OK, it happens.  What would Rudy Giuliani do?  What would Ed Koch do?  What would Fiorello LaGuardia do?  What would they do?  They'd fill the void, that's what they'd do.  They would take charge of the MTA using their three votes and shape a plan.  They would coalesce the surrounding counties that will be equally devastated by these commuter increases.  They would lead, not complain.  But Mayor-for-Life Mike does nothing.  His hatred of the automobile and drivers, or at least those of us with less than twenty automobiles, blinds him to seeking any other solution than bridge taxes - another term for his beloved Congestion Tax.  So while Gov. Paterson tells the MTA to do its worst our Mayor first stays silent and then at the 11th hour tells us, like Howard Beale, that he is mad as hell and encourages us to open our windows and shout the same.

I have told you since I started this blog that Mayor-for-Life-Mike has no leadership abilities.  So I expect nothing more than he is giving me.  What I never expected and sit stymied by is how stupid and compliant the voters are.  This man has a 65% approval rating?????  How is that possible?  Of what are people approving?  His inability to prioritize his budget cuts, his lack of leadership on a whole host of development projects throughout the city, his aloof and condescending manner?  Or maybe it's just his general cowardice and blame shifting.  He says today that, "He tells it like it is".  What he has always failed to understand is that we don't elect echos, we elect leaders.  Paterson is a totally lost cause.  The New York press corps is in love with Mayor-for-Life Mike and gives him a pass on almost everything.  But I would strongly recommend that Col Allan go to press tomorrow with a banner headline reminiscent of another failed mayor and proclaim, "MIKE: DO SOMETHING".

3/24/09  Escaping The Deficit

The New York Times today has a good story about closing prisons and other reforms in order to balance desperate state budgets.  Jennifer Steinhauer looks at very red states like Kentucky and Kansas and their search for innovative ways to deal with their criminal justice programs cost effectively.  I applaud them, although it is too bad they are doing the right thing for the wrong reason.  The 80's and 90's saw states and the federal government go on a spending spree building prisons, creating tough mandatory minimum sentencing laws, reducing time for good behavior and increasing time spent on parole.  All this resulted in a burgeoning of the prison-industrial complex.  As it was with military bases, it has become nearly impossible to stand the political heat necessary to close a prison.  But states are doing what states always do because they have to balance their budgets; namely they make choices, they prioritize and they innovate.  The pernicious evil of the central government in Washington is that it is never forced to do any of these things.  Not having to balance a budget means our elected officials can duck and pass on ever making a truly hard budget decision.  The U.S. government, so says the CBO, is going to run trillion dollar deficits for years.  Not the budget, just the deficit.  As they do not have to balance their budget no tough choices are called for.  Take prisons.  Every state gives more "good time" than the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 15%.  The average time a felon is on probation after leaving a U.S. prison is 3 years.   The vast majority of first-time offenders do not require three years of supervised release post prison.  It is wasteful and unnecessary.  But the trend has been for longer and longer probation in the federal system at a staggering financial cost.  The U.S. Justice Department has no plans to close any prisons, increase good time, shorten probation or propose to Congress that the spiderweb of overlapping federal laws be streamlined so as not to mimic every single state law in existence. 

Why?  No incentive.  If New York City or New York State or Michigan or the nightmare that is California's state budget is wildly out of whack, something has to give.  It's just that simple.  In the federal system - remember I worked in Congress for 2 years - nothing has to give because there is no imperative.  Print more money, pass a CR (continuing resolution) sell China another trillion in debt, anything but deal with the underlying issue that we either cannot afford what we want or we are going to have to pay more for it.  It's that simple.  Tax more or spend less. My conservative inclination is to always fall on the spend less side of that argument. 

In every state in America when the bad times come the executive says to his cabinet: I want your list of programs to be axed or give me a proposal for 7% reductions in your department.  Why has it become so completely unthinkable for the federal government to do the same?  The short answer, and I am not saying anything new, is that we want it both ways.  If they actually started cutting many would howl.  We have come to the mistaken conviction that most of what the federal government does is essential.  In fact, very little of what it does is essential.  Think about your daily life and figure how much the federal government has to do with it.  Not your mail, they're off-budget and self sustaining.  The intangibles you cant see are worthwhile to a small degree, namely the common defense and some public good.  I agree the meat should be inspected and someone should sit over a screen to make sure planes don't crash into each other.  But even there cuts could be sustained.  When a budget becomes so enormous, 3 1/2 trillion dollars, that you cannot effectively manage it - and no one is managing this budget - then it is time to cut and cut and cut until you can rationally explain to the citizenry what your priorities are and why.  It would take Obama 10 years just to explain what's in that budget and why.  Rest assured he doesn't know 1/100th what is being spent in his name.  Can the exercise hurt?  Ask the cabinet secretaries for that 7% reduction and send it to congress.  Let's have the debate.   People like to belittle and ridicule Newt Gingrich but he was one of the very few people who had the courage to say: let's discuss what it is we're spending on and see if it still makes sense.  Federal Depts of Education and Commerce?  He rightly called for their elimination and was mocked.  

My focus these days is prison reform so let me do my part and call on Eric Holder to ask the BOP for those reductions and the lawyers in the criminal division for those legislative changes.  Most people don't belong in federal prison.  They either belong in a state prison or no prison at all.  Unfortunately, we've reached the point where even a trillion dollars in the red can't force a corrupted, bloated and atrophied system to create priorities.

Stealing Third

I don't believe in futile gestures.  I am not a Don Quixote and I try not to tilt at windmills.  Most lost causes are just that, lost. Sometimes, however, either because of heart or head - a battle must be joined.  The best example I can give right now is on display across the river in New Jersey.  A few months ago only Chris Dagget and his family could have explained the formula and rationale for a successful candidacy.  Now, whatever happens this Tuesday - whoever wins and by however much - Chris Dagget will have caused that outcome; simply no question about it any longer.  What started as a pointless third-party candidacy has become a real game changer.

I fully accept the outcome of this Tuesday's Mayoral election.  Michael Bloomberg will be elected Mayor.  Notice I did not say re-elected.  I refuse to accept the legality of the coup that permits him to run in this race.  Since it cannot be legal for him to run for a third term, this is just an election to me, not a re-election.  Even if he gets 65% of the vote, he will have stolen this election as surely as any third-world junta at the point of a bayonet; through bribery, chicanery and illegality.

But however pointless it may be at this time to outline the case for not electing him, I feel the need to make it since it seems no one else will.  I was sickened by the endorsement that appeared this past weekend in The New York Times.  There was a time that the NYT took a very principled approach: If you do not participate in NYC's Campaign Finance program they would not endorse you.  It was simple and they were not kidding.  While I could not agree with them less on the issue of campaign finance reform, and NYC's in particular, it was a principled stand that had to be respected.  What happened to that ironclad policy?  They mentioned briefly and only tepidly the $150 Million dollars he will spend in this race.  Instead of mocking and shaming this obscene expenditure, they blithely commented on it.

Sadly, Bill Thompson seems incapable of making the case against the conventional wisdom that Mike Bloomberg has been a great Mayor with a significant record of accomplishment (In fact, Bill Thompson could not have run a more lifeless campaign if his name were Mel Carnahan).  I will try therefore to lay out the case against another 4 years.

I worked for a great Mayor, Rudy Giuliani.  When you know one and see one up close it helps to spot a pretender or someone who merely aspires to greatness.  Just consider what Rudy Giuliani accomplished in slightly more than his first term in office:

1.    Merged three police departments: NYPD, Housing and Transit.

2.    Instituted COMPSTAT at NYPD which, among many other police innovations,  lead to a 50% reduction in crime.

3.    Launched WEP (Work Experience Program), NYC's workfare program that resulted in a 2/3 drop in welfare recipients.

4.    Merged the City's two information and telecommunications agencies and created DOITT (Dept of Information, Telecommunications & Technology).

5.    Sold the City owned WNYC and made it self-sustaining.

6.    Merged the City's administrative functions into one agency, DCAS (Dept of Citywide Admin. Services).

7.    Merged the many design and construction functions of the various agencies into a streamlined single agency, DDC (Dept of Design and Construction).

8.    Removed mob influence from the waste carting industry and cut costs to businesses by an average 40%.

9.     Forced the MTA to unify zones and fares for all residents under the banner, "One City, One Fare."

10.    Rejected increased education aid from Albany and forced 110 Livingston Street to reduce its bureaucracy and account for its spending.

11.    Eliminated the fare on the Staten Island Ferry.

12.    Negotiated employee buy-outs which reduced City headcount without the need for lay-offs, an innovation for NYC government.

13.    Managed an inherited three billion dollar deficit without raising taxes.

14.    Reduced the Hotel Occupancy Tax which began the record setting return of tourists and business conventions to NYC.

15.    Worked to bring Visy Paper to Staten Island.  The first new major manufacturing plant in NYC in decades.

16.    Reopened the Howland Hook Marine Terminal.

17.     Declared war on the CUNY bureaucracy (City University of NY), demanding higher standards and more accountability.  Result: One of the lowest rated public university systems has become one of the best.  CUNY schools now compare and compete favorably with distinguished private colleges, laughably unthinkable a decade ago.

18.    Negotiated the toughest union contacts in City history, including: givebacks, privatization initiatives and the famous (infamous) double zero pay package.

19.    Developed and implemented a new waste removal plan & system for the city's trash that resulted in the long promised closing of the Fresh Kills dump before the end of his second term.

20. Produced the first year to year budget with an actual decrease in expenditures, FY 95.

21.    And perhaps most impressive, the decades long decline in population turned around with a one million person increase in NYC's population.  As is often said, people vote with their feet.

I created that list in 5 minutes without any reference material.  There's a lot more to list, both small and large.  But it does no one, except Michael Bloomberg, any good to forget that remarkable and singular record of achievement.  It's probably unparalleled by any Mayor in any city, anywhere.  And yet how soon we forget.  I challenge Bloomberg's Deputy Mayors, a decade from now, to put together a list of three Bloomberg accomplishments from memory that matches any one of the above.  I guarantee you now, they will not be able to then.

Only Rudy Giuliani's deplorable behavior since 2002 could make us think the Bloomberg years could compare with the Giuliani years.  But many, mainly lead by The New York Times, are so happy that Rudy Giuliani is out of office that anyone compares favorably.  The NYT, in its glowing embrace of Bloomberg, seemed to reflect on the recent inflammatory comments by Giuliani and just sigh loudly - once again - how relieved they are that he's no longer our Mayor.

And the incumbent's record of achievement over two full terms?  Let's take a look.

If you're thinking school governance, I assure you you're mistaken.  I was there in the final years of the Giuliani Administration.  Any informed observer will remind you that the legislature and Gov. Pataki were fully prepared to hand over the schools to the Mayor of NYC.  They were prepared philosophically to do it in 2000 and 2001.  The votes were there in the Senate and the Assembly.   But Speaker Sheldon Silver was resolutely opposed to giving Rudy Giuliani this final feather in his cap.  He would not not do it while Rudy was in office.  The next Mayor, whether he be Green, Ferrer, Bloomberg or a corpse, was going to get school governance for the asking.  Any success Bloomberg wishes to claim on this front can only be that he was not Rudy Giuliani in 2002, because that is the sum and substance achievement in getting mayoral control of the schools for him.

But put that aside for the moment.  So he got the schools, what did he do with them?  Unlike Giuliani, who made it clear that what was wrong with public school education was not a lack of funding but structural/core issues, Bloomberg increased the annual schools budget 65% from over 12 billion dollars to a mind blowing 19 billion dollars.  He claims serious success in testing scores.  All analysts of those increases either dismiss them, see them as part of a general statewide pattern or credit any bounce to the teach-to-test curriculum that has been adopted by Chancellor Klein.  Certainly no parent with a child in a city school believes their kid's education is anywhere near 65% improved over the last eight years.  The vast majority would aver that they have seen no positive change.  Their children are no smarter, more well spoken, better behaved or any other metric you might wish to use.

Of the great middle class, whom the Mayor claims to champion, how have they fared over his two terms?  Compared to the Giuliani years, they have been sucker punched again and again. Where Rudy Giuliani decreased taxes and fees, Bloomberg has increased any and every tax, fee, toll or revenue enhancer he could find.  The last eight years have seen double digit increases in property taxes, subway fares, tolls on bridges and tunnels, water rates and the sales tax.  And this does not include the divisive Congestion Toll he hoped to impose on those of us who do not consider traveling within the city a luxury.  Even the sports stadia he gave hundreds of millions of dollars to, turned right around after gouging on all this public money and raped the public with massive increases in ticket and concession prices.  On what credible basis can anyone claim that Michael Bloomberg looks out for the little guy, let alone relates to him?

Housing?  This is a subject I know a little bit about.  While our friends at The New York Times write fawning news stories to the Bloomberg housing initiatives, the truth lay elsewhere.  Two significant facts that have been overlooked in all the analysis of these housing stats.  First, the numbers don't add up.  Many of the 100,000+ units that are claimed to have been created or rehabbed do not exist.  They are included in the development plans for large scale economic development projects that may or may not get approval and funding years from now.  Second, as a keen observer of the ads placed by developers for HPD & HDC projects, I have seen an alarming trend toward high-cost City sponsored co-ops over the last eight years.  Prior to the Bloomberg Administration there were literally only a handful of City subsidized co-op projects, all extremely affordable.  Now there are dozens and none can be deemed affordable. 

Bad enough that they are diverting needed funding for affordable rental housing on co-ops, the price of these co-ops are eye popping.  Eighteen months ago I saw an ad for an HPD sponsored co-op selling for over $700,000.  Why in God's name would City tax dollars or even the time needed to work on these projects be expended to create and sell apts. for $700K?   What you see when you examine the ads are City sponsored co-op apartments regularly selling for $300K, $400K, $500K.  Only in a Mike Bloomberg world could this type of housing be deemed "affordable" and worthy of the City's interest, time and money.  In short, on housing, his numbers don't add up and his priorities are not ours.  His housing record can be summed up simply by the extraordinary number of luxury apartment buildings that have been erected, many with little mentioned City subsidies.

And of the Mayor's 'signature' initiatives?  Well, first let me say that it's embarrassing that anyone would want to claim these things as representative of one's best efforts over eight years in office.  But he does, so let's look at them:

1.    Smoking -  I smoke and feel that most of these measures are simply the frustrations of a former smoker against those who can and do continue to enjoy smoking.  As any smoker will tell you, the worst people are former smokers.  They hate that you can do what they cannot or will not partake in any longer.  As for the results, no sensible person believes the statistics coming out of the NYC Dept of Health (DOH).  Smoking has not decreased 20%-30% over the last eight years. Be assured of that.   All this has done is imposed another tax chiefly on the poor and middle class and made NYC an even more financially undesirable place to live.  These never ending attempts to target out-of-state tobacco retailers is a God awful waste of the overtaxed resources of the City's Law Department.  Which, by the way, recent independent analysis has shown settles more and more litigation because they do not have the resources to take these cases to full trial and fear the outcome given their limited resources.  The lesson - unlike the federal government, which has unlimited resources - on the city level a cost paid somewhere will result in a loss somewhere else.  These are the trade-offs Bloomberg is making with our money and they are not worth it.  And while we're on the subject of smoking, it is another act of Bloomberg cowardice that the promised grotesque advertisements that will be going up in drugstores, food marts, candy stores and bodegas have not appeared before the election.  DOH has promised rules that will require any establishment that sells cigarettes to post large depictions of sick lungs and such.  The outrage will be swift and hard when it comes.  Store owners will win this one in court for sure.  Notice these rules - and the resulting signage - were not promulgated before the election.  As to the effect of these doctored DOH stats, I'll get to that in a minute. 

2.    Guns - No one believes that this on-going attack on out-of-state gun dealers is anything other than an extremely anti-gun, anti 2nd Amendment Bloomberg trying to impose his views on the red states.  Not a single killing or crime of any kind has been prevented in NYC from these actions.  It's Bloomberg lashing out at a guaranteed right that he personally hates.  More work for the Law Department when they're not writing huge checks to career felons for frivolous lawsuits, as reported recently.

3.    Calories - I suppose a case can be made that sometimes the benefits of an intrusive government policy might outweigh the costs.  This was never the case with mandatory calorie information, however.  The recent comprehensive Yale University  study of NYC's law told us what we all already knew; they don't work and never would.  When you go into a McDonald's - unless you walked in with the intention of ordering a salad - discovering that a Big Mac is fattening is not going to get you to change your order.  But the larger question here always was less about government intrusion and more "why bother?'  How is it the government's business this I should order skim milk as opposed to whole and why would they want to?  It's really outrageous when you stop to think about it.  It is also not surprising that DOH has this week announced that old Yale Univ was wrong.  DOH's own in-house stats supposedly show the law is working and people's behavior has changed.  You know that's not true.  Can you imagine a Bloomberg Health Department, or any City agency under Bloomberg, stating that a major mayoral initiative was a bust?  Of course not.   The net effect of these policies is that a once highly respected municipal health department has become a biased, propaganda arm of City Hall.  When DOH speaks on any subject; smoking, calories, the flu, who would believe them?  Their track record is filled with consistent misdirection and outright prevarication.  The latest example is a million dollar campaign against sweetened beverages.  This campaign not only demonstrates that you cannot trust anything DOH says anymore, it also shows what a weasel Mayor Mike has become.  Remember during his first term when he inked a landmark deal with Snapple to provide beverages exclusively to schools and government buildings?  Remember the joint press conference where DOH, among others, told us how Snapple was going to help solve the obesity problem in our schools?  Not to mention how this deal was going to fill City coffers (it turned out to be a colossal bust).  Well low and behold not a term later and the ad in the subway depicting a sugary drink dissolving into fat is none other than Snapple.  Look at the ad.  The shape of the bottle, the color of the label and the tea-like color of the beverage being poured.  In one term DOH has deemed Snapple scourge from savior.  Honestly, in a Bloomberg Administration, who would trust anything DOH says anymore? 

4.    Stop & Frisk - It would be unfair to rap Bloomberg with this one since it was initially a Giuliani policy, but he's embraced this as his own so the criticism sticks.  If by stop and frisk we mean that when a police officer sees a man stroking what appears to be a gun under his jacket and stops to pat him down, then no I don't oppose that and nor would most people.  More to the point, you never needed any special legislation or court ruling for a cop to do that.  It's reasonable suspicion.  But that is not what mean in NYC in 2009 by stop and frisk.  And that is where everyone is getting confused. 

The thing about this policy, and I accept my share of the blame, is that if you're a middle to upper middle class white person, living in Manhattan, this all seems perfectly reasonable.  It appears that way because for all the years I lived on the Upper West and East Sides, I never saw a single person stopped and frisked, white or black.  Not one.  It's all an abstraction to you when you live in those neighborhoods.  Now when I lived in a halfway house off of Fordham Road in the Bronx, I saw young black and Hispanic men stopped routinely.  On a number of occasions as I walked back to the house with a black or Hispanic resident they were stopped and put up against a wall while no one gave me a second look.  If they were acting suspiciously, I was equally suspicious.  Yet as a middle-class looking white guy, I was never going to be stopped.  Never once could I say objectively that I witnessed someone stopped for anything that appeared suspicious.  I have no knowledge of this, but my guess is the cops operate on a quota.   They would just stop any black or Hispanic guy, put them up against a wall, frisk them and let them go.  I witnessed this hundreds of times in the six months I lived there.  Try and imagine for one moment the white editorial page editor of the Daily News - who vociferously supports this policy - being stopped in his Manhattan neighborhood routinely and put up against a wall.  Do you really think the Daily News would be for this if, let's say,  Mort Zuckerman was frisked every few days for no reason?  Of course not.  The Supreme Court has never accepted the rationale of stop & frisk the way it is being practiced in NYC.  It is sad, as a Democrat and a black man, that Bill Thompson is generally OK with all this.  It's sadder still that in a city filled with black and Hispanic elected officials virtually no one says a word about this policy.  I've never been personally effected by this policy and never will be, yet as a lover of the Constitution, it's sickening.

5.    Terror - I give the NYPD all the requisite plaudits for their Joint Terrorism Task Task work.  It's been around for years now and continues to be far more effective than the FBI or the CIA in finding domestic terrorist activity.  To the extent Bloomberg hasn't monkeyed this up or Rudy/Bratton policing, kudos to him.  His 'signature' initiative in this regard, I do not applaud. More and more of the Island of Manhattan is being ringed with outdoor spy cameras - CCTV.  Bloomberg believes it is important to get as much of Manhattan on CCTV as possible.  It costs millions in city and federal dollars to install and maintain the operations necessary for this program.  And the results?  Well we don't know anything practically but we do know that the largest such system tried in the world is a total bust.  Bloomberg - who is a lover of all things British - is either unaware or disdainful of a recent nationwide study done in Great Britain as to the effectiveness of their CCTV system which covers nearly every outdoor inch of that country.  It found that the hundreds of millions of pounds spent were a waste.  It deterred no crime and actually thwarted the capture of criminal suspects.  Why?  You'll never guess.  Criminals started to wear low slung hats, hoodies and shades in the commission of their crimes.  No pictures proved useful.  The value in Britain has been that after suicide bombings the police are quickly able to identify the attackers and their movements leading up to the attacks.  That has an investigative, after the fact value, I suppose.

But given no deterrent effect, is ringing Britain visually like a prison yard - weighed against the civil liberties cost - worth the price?  I would argue it is not.  I oppose these cameras here because I believe them to be an unwarranted intrusion into our daily lives.  Couple that with the fact that it has no practical benefit, and you have to ask yourself why.  The answer in Bloomberg's case is the same as smoking, calories, stop & frisk, all of it.  He hates people, individual rights and liberties and loves big government.  Ironic isn't it.  The perfect standard bearer apparently for NYC's Republican Party. 

6.    311 - Oh, please. 

7.    The Economy - Remember how we've heard nothing for nearly two decades in state politics except how badly the upstate economy is doing?  Pataki ran on it, Hillary ran on it, Spitzer ran on it.  Now wouldn't it be astounding to discover that in the midst of this nightmarish recession our billionaire chief executive has mismanaged our financial affairs to such an extent that NYS now has a lower unemployment rate than does NYC.  I cannot remember when that was the case.  The whole reason for a Bloomberg mayoralty was that this financial genius would lead us through the tough times and we'd come out the other end unscathed.  Try and get your head around this fact: NYC now has a higher unemployment rate than Buffalo.  It's unthinkable and yet true.  For those of us who are New Yorkers we cannot remember when such a thing existed.  This is the heralded stewardship that we were promised?  That we would actually make Buffalo's economy look good by comparison to ours.  And this is just the beginning.  On the one hand Bloomberg has increased spending at an alarming rate.  On the other he has raised taxes sky high on everyone but the wealthy.  When the time comes that the budget outlays are unsustainable we're all going to discover that the economy of the city requires a giant kick start.  That's going to mean budget cuts or tax cuts.  The budget will not be able to be cut because the increases Bloomberg has imposed are, in the main, permanent and ever growing.   Tax cuts will be deemed too risky since, in the short term,  they would require more budget cuts.  He has left his successor(s) with a budgetary time bomb only rivaled by - and maybe far worse - than that of the Financial Crisis of the 1970's. 

8.    The Olympics - True this an unattained achievement, but Bloomberg set so much of his prestige and time during his first term towards this unsuccessful bid that it's only fair to judge the effort, even ignoring the outcome.  This more than anything else I have or will write should tell you why you do not want Mike Bloomberg to be your Mayor.

Who vies for the Olympics?  As we all know, cities that need to prove something.  Even great cities find they need the Olympics for the affirmation they think it bestows (i.e. Beijing, Moscow, Berlin, London).  They believe it shows the world, "we've arrived" or "we're back" or "you approve!"  Guess which city singularly of all world cities needs none of these things and never has.  Yup, New York City.  Yea, we'll throw the occasional World's Fair but it's not the same thing and not done for the same reasons.  Only a Bostonian, complete with a second city complex, would think NYC "needs" the Olympics.  We need to demonstrate nothing to anyone, that is our greatness.   Bin Laden could have blown up the Sears Tower in Chicago (taller than WTC) or the Bank of America Building in SF (better design).  But he choose the WTC because it was here, the heart of the great city; center of the world's attention.  Mayor Mike doesn't get that, he never will.  I have no problem voting for an immigrant from China, Mexico or Korea to serve as our Mayor.  I have a very serious problem about electing someone from Boston, however.  The only Boston resident who ever transformed into a real New Yorker, as we all know, was Babe Ruth.  Every time Mayor Mike speaks in that grating New England accent it's like he's spitting on us all.  His quest to bring us the Olympics showed better than any policy or program pronouncement that he is not one of us, just doesn't get who we are, and what we're about.  Moreover, he never will. 

Mike Bloomberg's great selling point back in 2001 was that he was the Great Manager. The trains would run on time finally and he would do more with less.  If that were the promise then he as failed miserably.  Any of the twenty Giuliani achievements I have listed is more impressive, more meaningful to the life, future and history of NYC, than is the cumulative record of the last eight years.

He hates smoking, the automobile and obese people.  His vision is comprised not of ideals but of pet peeves.  He brags that he's an independent.  Anyone who can travel in eight years from being a liberal Democrat to a Bush Republican to a Nader independent is not free thinking, he is totally devoid of convictions or an ideology.  We don't elect people like that to lead us, we assign them to the category of schizophrenic.

I fully acknowledge the unfairness in contrasting a great leaders record with every other officeholder who follows.  We would never re-elect any president if we judged them simply by how their record compared to Washington's, Lincoln's, FDR's or Reagan's.   So it is inherently unfair to judge Bloomberg (mediocre) by Giuliani (great).  But conversely, looking back after eight years in office and summing it up essentially by saying, "I didn't make things worse," - which is probably the most charitable thing I could say - is also no reason for another term, let alone a stolen third.

Do the right thing on Tuesday on behalf of all of us who can't.  Don't reward arrogance and mediocrity with four more years.  Vote for a competent, quiet man to helm the ship.  Elect Bill Thompson, Mayor.