In a frantic effort to reach a last minute war funding compromise the weakened Bush Administration backed off from its earlier promise to veto any bill that contained a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The facts behind the compromise are as follows.
April 26, 2007 @ 4:00 a.m. President Bush sends a communiqué to Democratic Party leaders Reid and Pelosi that he is prepared to withdraw troops from Iraq when “Hell freezes over.”
April 26, 2007 @ 7:08 a.m. Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi inform the White House the timetable is insufferable as scientific estimates for global warming indicate temperatures in New Jersey will rise, not fall, and thus precludes ice covering it.
April 26, 2007 @ 8:33 a.m. Campaign advisor Clotaire Raphille contacts the White House and reminds President Bush the primal always wins and he should continue to emulate Moses leading the people to the Promised Land. In short, Raphille suggests 40 years. President Bush agrees.
November 3, 2008 @ 9:25 a.m. Democrats debate proposal, experience brain meltdown and accept offer and claim victory.
Although still early, reaction is pouring in. PM Olmert’s office has released the following statement: “Israel is a small country caught in the vortex of historical change. But, forty years of Condolisa Rice shuttling between Jerusalem, Jordan and Baghdad - it will finish us.” Benjamin Netanyahu was equally opposed, “Forty years of Rice? Hell, four years of Texas take-out barbecue will finish us! The White House has not yet responded to the Israeli demand the President immediately attend and address a full session of the Knesset, although Democrat’s are hopeful.
Crowds, from Haifa to Tel Aviv are filling the streets. Amidst the renting of clothes a chant seems to be rising. Stay with us the crystal ball is spotty. People seem to be saying - no, they’re crying, “Lord, why us!”
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
RUTGERS v. IMUS: SENATOR CLINTON FLUNKS OUT
Senator Clinton spoke at Rutgers on April 20, 2007. The speech was broadcast by C-span and its video may be played at the Senator’s website. The issue is whether Senator Clinton’s remarks rise above any personal animus towards Imus and show a solid consideration of the issues raised by his comment. Towards that end the speech is summarized as follows.
Senator Clinton calls on students everywhere to turn, what she believes to be, our culture of degradation into a culture of empowerment. While she grants it as given that we must protect freedom of expression, we cannot allow it to be used as a license or excuse to demean or humiliate our fellow citizens. The reason such speech must be stopped is those with power use it to marginalize those with less power. Individuals or groups “are pushed to the margins socially, politically and economically, as if their actions, accomplishments, very lives become invisible – they just don’t matter.”
Senator Clinton calls on the audience for active participation because involvement shifts the debate. By questioning, challenging and confronting such conduct a critical mass will eventually be reached and a change in culture will be the result. Thus, we must “confront the use and abuse of power by individuals who use their status or station to demean others, to exploit our common values for profit or political gain.” Moreover, we must deny powerful institutions the same license or excuse. Senator Clinton notes we “live at a time when the biggest institutions, from government to media to major corporations have the power to shape and reshape our attitudes towards each other, our images of each other and our very values themselves.”
To accomplish this goal Senator Clinton calls upon the audience to work for the passage of laws that end discrimination, i.e. equal pay for equal work, and the organizing of a collective social voice against marginalizing, and hence discriminating, rhetoric, without government involvement, that creates an environment that will “change attitudes to do the right thing.”
All in all then, it might appear at first glance that the Senator advocates change consistent with the values of free expression. No one can argue that unchecked power is subject to usurpation and abuse. Furthermore, no one can argue that institutions and people with power will not seek to maintain and expand its scope. The obvious tension is that those who are trivialized by such power will increasingly organize and find ways to express the view that “enough is enough.”
At second glance, however, Senator Clinton does not support free speech. The objective result of her program to bring about change is to forbid self-declared bad speech as opposed to overcoming it with good speech. Senator Clinton has decided, and is asking her base to accept or reaffirm, that her speech is not only good speech, but correct speech. And, therefore, it may be imposed by the mob like creation of social norming as opposed to the persuasion that results from full, open and uninhibited public conversation. If Senator Clinton wanted to overcome bad speech with good speech she would have moved to expand the access of those who are marginalized by the government, the media and corporations to the various platforms for expression. She would rebuke those who pay for her campaign.
Senator Clinton, however, appears to forget that effective free speech is not necessarily nice (the Senator is a lawyer). The civil rights - anti-war - free people movement of the 1960’s was rude, crude, and shocking - thus it evoked similar calls for censorship. Some movement slogans were: (1) “Power to the people, off the pig!” (2) “Killing for peace is like fucking for chastity!”, (3) “Pull out like your father should have!”, (4) “When we say the right is impotent, we mean it!”, (5)”Make love, not war.”, (6) “Up against the wall, mother-fucker!”, and (7) “You’re either with us or against us!”
If one thinks about the 1950’s it’s easy to understand how such thoughts and words were incendiary to the “Leave it to Beaver” generation. And, groups like the “Moral Majority” took notice and actively joined the debate. This is exactly why the movement’s words were so powerful. They pushed people to think, to debate, to decide and to act. Sound like Imus?
It isn’t Imus fault that leaders such as Gwen Ifill didn’t have, pardon the expression, the balls to get in his face. So too, the 1960’s “liberals”, now re-branded as “progressives” were dragged kicking and screaming into the national debate. After it had become fashionable, after it had become safe. On the backs of others. But the movement of the 1960’s, for all its imperfections, wasn’t naive, and the liberals entry soon gave rise to a new slogan – “Liberals make the best fascists!”
This is what Senator Clinton’s speech objectively seems to embody. She does not challenge the power of government, the media and corporations to enlarge access and expand debate. Rather she seeks a deal with them to exercise reputation management and repackage their approach, to prohibit expression of the views she believes are incorrect. Senator Clinton does not preserve or call for fundamental change; rather she seeks a concession, a deal with the devil, if you will, to leave power undisturbed as long as it is nice. She stirs and appeases those who practice fundamental attribution analysis. And, in the end, the oppressed become the oppressor.
Oh, well. Flag it mom. Cause here we go again. Up against the wall, mother-fucker . . . .
Senator Clinton calls on students everywhere to turn, what she believes to be, our culture of degradation into a culture of empowerment. While she grants it as given that we must protect freedom of expression, we cannot allow it to be used as a license or excuse to demean or humiliate our fellow citizens. The reason such speech must be stopped is those with power use it to marginalize those with less power. Individuals or groups “are pushed to the margins socially, politically and economically, as if their actions, accomplishments, very lives become invisible – they just don’t matter.”
Senator Clinton calls on the audience for active participation because involvement shifts the debate. By questioning, challenging and confronting such conduct a critical mass will eventually be reached and a change in culture will be the result. Thus, we must “confront the use and abuse of power by individuals who use their status or station to demean others, to exploit our common values for profit or political gain.” Moreover, we must deny powerful institutions the same license or excuse. Senator Clinton notes we “live at a time when the biggest institutions, from government to media to major corporations have the power to shape and reshape our attitudes towards each other, our images of each other and our very values themselves.”
To accomplish this goal Senator Clinton calls upon the audience to work for the passage of laws that end discrimination, i.e. equal pay for equal work, and the organizing of a collective social voice against marginalizing, and hence discriminating, rhetoric, without government involvement, that creates an environment that will “change attitudes to do the right thing.”
All in all then, it might appear at first glance that the Senator advocates change consistent with the values of free expression. No one can argue that unchecked power is subject to usurpation and abuse. Furthermore, no one can argue that institutions and people with power will not seek to maintain and expand its scope. The obvious tension is that those who are trivialized by such power will increasingly organize and find ways to express the view that “enough is enough.”
At second glance, however, Senator Clinton does not support free speech. The objective result of her program to bring about change is to forbid self-declared bad speech as opposed to overcoming it with good speech. Senator Clinton has decided, and is asking her base to accept or reaffirm, that her speech is not only good speech, but correct speech. And, therefore, it may be imposed by the mob like creation of social norming as opposed to the persuasion that results from full, open and uninhibited public conversation. If Senator Clinton wanted to overcome bad speech with good speech she would have moved to expand the access of those who are marginalized by the government, the media and corporations to the various platforms for expression. She would rebuke those who pay for her campaign.
Senator Clinton, however, appears to forget that effective free speech is not necessarily nice (the Senator is a lawyer). The civil rights - anti-war - free people movement of the 1960’s was rude, crude, and shocking - thus it evoked similar calls for censorship. Some movement slogans were: (1) “Power to the people, off the pig!” (2) “Killing for peace is like fucking for chastity!”, (3) “Pull out like your father should have!”, (4) “When we say the right is impotent, we mean it!”, (5)”Make love, not war.”, (6) “Up against the wall, mother-fucker!”, and (7) “You’re either with us or against us!”
If one thinks about the 1950’s it’s easy to understand how such thoughts and words were incendiary to the “Leave it to Beaver” generation. And, groups like the “Moral Majority” took notice and actively joined the debate. This is exactly why the movement’s words were so powerful. They pushed people to think, to debate, to decide and to act. Sound like Imus?
It isn’t Imus fault that leaders such as Gwen Ifill didn’t have, pardon the expression, the balls to get in his face. So too, the 1960’s “liberals”, now re-branded as “progressives” were dragged kicking and screaming into the national debate. After it had become fashionable, after it had become safe. On the backs of others. But the movement of the 1960’s, for all its imperfections, wasn’t naive, and the liberals entry soon gave rise to a new slogan – “Liberals make the best fascists!”
This is what Senator Clinton’s speech objectively seems to embody. She does not challenge the power of government, the media and corporations to enlarge access and expand debate. Rather she seeks a deal with them to exercise reputation management and repackage their approach, to prohibit expression of the views she believes are incorrect. Senator Clinton does not preserve or call for fundamental change; rather she seeks a concession, a deal with the devil, if you will, to leave power undisturbed as long as it is nice. She stirs and appeases those who practice fundamental attribution analysis. And, in the end, the oppressed become the oppressor.
Oh, well. Flag it mom. Cause here we go again. Up against the wall, mother-fucker . . . .
Friday, April 13, 2007
RUTGERS v. IMUS: IS SENATOR CLINTON’S RESPONSE PRESIDENTIAL?
Both Senator and President Clinton have often been on the receiving end of Don Imus remarks. So, like scores of others, both have many reason(s) to be further outraged by the Rutgers’s incident. But, it is Senator Clinton who wants to be President. Thus, it seems natural to ask whether her take on the matter is consistent with the job.
The question is important because the President’s principles regarding race and gender permeate every conceivable American policy and relationship. The proposed test seems straightforward: does Senator Clinton's response rise above any personal animosity towards Imus and show a solid consideration of the issues raised by the remark.
Senator Clinton addresses Imus in a manner expected of a President, even though final thoughts must be reserved until after her forthcoming address on the matter at Rutgers’s. First, she has formally addressed the issue through her website. She is on the record in a concrete way. Second, the Senator clearly addresses multiple issues in a positive manner. She states what everyone knows – our kids are both our happiness and our future, and recognizes the basketball team as an example of both. Conversely, she condemns the awful content of Imus’s remarks. And, finally she provides people with the opportunity to do something positive to overcome the remarks, i.e. she provides an email contact form you can use to tell the kids you support them.
Senator Clinton's response to the Imus incident is as telling by what it does not say as for what it says. As president she must uphold the Constitution. As a child of the 60’s she must know the vital role free speech plays in every aspect of our lives. Furthermore, as tempting or difficult as it might personally be for her, given the remark, the person making the remark, and any possible perception of some immediate political benefit, Senator Clinton doesn’t demand Imus be fired (censored). Rather, she seems to understand why bad speech is and must be protected, and has displayed smarts, courage, and leadership in addressing the issue.
A website and what it infers can, however, only go so far. If, when Senator Clinton addresses the Imus issue at Rutgers, she backtracks or but fors – if she too trashes or joins in the frenzied parsing of the right to bad speech – then we lose. But if she takes the opportunity to inject the real underlying concerns and problems the Imus remark raises into this campaign - if she truly challenges all candidates to engage in a constructive, albeit partisan debate with constructive solutions – we win. That really would be Presidential.
The question is important because the President’s principles regarding race and gender permeate every conceivable American policy and relationship. The proposed test seems straightforward: does Senator Clinton's response rise above any personal animosity towards Imus and show a solid consideration of the issues raised by the remark.
Senator Clinton addresses Imus in a manner expected of a President, even though final thoughts must be reserved until after her forthcoming address on the matter at Rutgers’s. First, she has formally addressed the issue through her website. She is on the record in a concrete way. Second, the Senator clearly addresses multiple issues in a positive manner. She states what everyone knows – our kids are both our happiness and our future, and recognizes the basketball team as an example of both. Conversely, she condemns the awful content of Imus’s remarks. And, finally she provides people with the opportunity to do something positive to overcome the remarks, i.e. she provides an email contact form you can use to tell the kids you support them.
Senator Clinton's response to the Imus incident is as telling by what it does not say as for what it says. As president she must uphold the Constitution. As a child of the 60’s she must know the vital role free speech plays in every aspect of our lives. Furthermore, as tempting or difficult as it might personally be for her, given the remark, the person making the remark, and any possible perception of some immediate political benefit, Senator Clinton doesn’t demand Imus be fired (censored). Rather, she seems to understand why bad speech is and must be protected, and has displayed smarts, courage, and leadership in addressing the issue.
A website and what it infers can, however, only go so far. If, when Senator Clinton addresses the Imus issue at Rutgers, she backtracks or but fors – if she too trashes or joins in the frenzied parsing of the right to bad speech – then we lose. But if she takes the opportunity to inject the real underlying concerns and problems the Imus remark raises into this campaign - if she truly challenges all candidates to engage in a constructive, albeit partisan debate with constructive solutions – we win. That really would be Presidential.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
RUTGERS v. IMUS: LOVE ME, LOVE ME, LOVE ME
“I cried when they shot Medgar Evers, Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy, As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming; He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal. . . . Get it?!”
Phil Ochs
When one adds the names (good or bad) of Senator Robert Kennedy, Reverend Martin Luther King and yes, even Governor George Wallace, to the many unnamed civil rights activists bombed in their churches and beaten in their homes, it cannot be disputed many were attacked, and some died, for their “bad” ideas. During that same period, as ironic as it may be, Vietnam ant-war demonstrators were attacked for their “bad” ideas by Union workers at the World Trade Center and the police (“to maintain disorder”) at the Chicago Democratic Presidential Convention.
As the country wheeled under the weight of the violence people sustained themselves with the belief they, we’re better than that. That America, apart from the actions of a few, was different. The reasoning was the First Amendment protected both “good” and “bad” speech, and that the way to defeat “bad” speech was with “good speech.” Or to quote Duke Lacrosse player Seligman’s 04-11-07 quote of Lincoln, “Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.”
And that has happened in the case of Rutgers v. Imus. There is virtual unanimity Imus’s invective remarks are indescribably awful. Furthermore, with that unanimity comes a rising social consciousness and increasing individual commitments to how we should relate to one another. Thus, a major battle is won even though the struggle continues.
But what victory means and whether it is achievable, is, as every aspect of Iraq shows, contingent on how the war is fought. More particularly, to say this is not an issue of free speech is as ridiculous as saying CBS is not responsible to the FCC and corporations have no rights to free speech (good or bad).
It is within this framework that firing Imus is another step on a slippery slope. If we are not prepared to defend bad speech, all speech will be attacked by those with a power to supress its content. If the liberal is prepared to fire, and thus censor, Imus insults, it is a short step up to the Taliban and a short step down to “undermining the troops.”
The issue at hand goes way beyond whether Imus is being treated differently from some rappers. What will the Liberal demand of Brooklyn Law School where a student appeared in Playboy videos with a guy spanking her, but also interned in the Brooklyn D.A.'s domestic-violence unit? Will they fight to overturn Hustler Magazine v. Falwell and ban all “chuckleheads”? Will we continue to be the shining example to the world of “do as I say, not as I do?” Or, will we, just be afraid to speak and censor ourselves.
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy, As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming; He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal. . . . Get it?!”
Phil Ochs
When one adds the names (good or bad) of Senator Robert Kennedy, Reverend Martin Luther King and yes, even Governor George Wallace, to the many unnamed civil rights activists bombed in their churches and beaten in their homes, it cannot be disputed many were attacked, and some died, for their “bad” ideas. During that same period, as ironic as it may be, Vietnam ant-war demonstrators were attacked for their “bad” ideas by Union workers at the World Trade Center and the police (“to maintain disorder”) at the Chicago Democratic Presidential Convention.
As the country wheeled under the weight of the violence people sustained themselves with the belief they, we’re better than that. That America, apart from the actions of a few, was different. The reasoning was the First Amendment protected both “good” and “bad” speech, and that the way to defeat “bad” speech was with “good speech.” Or to quote Duke Lacrosse player Seligman’s 04-11-07 quote of Lincoln, “Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.”
And that has happened in the case of Rutgers v. Imus. There is virtual unanimity Imus’s invective remarks are indescribably awful. Furthermore, with that unanimity comes a rising social consciousness and increasing individual commitments to how we should relate to one another. Thus, a major battle is won even though the struggle continues.
But what victory means and whether it is achievable, is, as every aspect of Iraq shows, contingent on how the war is fought. More particularly, to say this is not an issue of free speech is as ridiculous as saying CBS is not responsible to the FCC and corporations have no rights to free speech (good or bad).
It is within this framework that firing Imus is another step on a slippery slope. If we are not prepared to defend bad speech, all speech will be attacked by those with a power to supress its content. If the liberal is prepared to fire, and thus censor, Imus insults, it is a short step up to the Taliban and a short step down to “undermining the troops.”
The issue at hand goes way beyond whether Imus is being treated differently from some rappers. What will the Liberal demand of Brooklyn Law School where a student appeared in Playboy videos with a guy spanking her, but also interned in the Brooklyn D.A.'s domestic-violence unit? Will they fight to overturn Hustler Magazine v. Falwell and ban all “chuckleheads”? Will we continue to be the shining example to the world of “do as I say, not as I do?” Or, will we, just be afraid to speak and censor ourselves.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
GOV. CORZINE & MS. KATZ: TRIVAL SUSPICION OR INTOLERABLE BIAS
First, this is a disclaimer of any legal capacity, authority, and ability. It also disclaims any connection to the matter at hand. It makes no pretense at giving legal advice. This is a layman’s everyone-has-one opinion. Second, the article is “biased” The bias here is that it appears from Mayor Lonegan’s Grievance that Governor Corzine and Ms. Katz are being misleadingly played.
The Devils’ Conjecture
Ok. Everyone has preferences and prejudices about the people we interact with and the things that we do. Furthermore, most people have influence, not the power, to determine an outcome. So, if preferences/prejudices and influence are the criteria for determining the propriety for negotiating the NJ-CWA labor agreement, then it is common sense that no one could pass the test. The overriding question then, is how one measures a preference or prejudice to determine if it is, or appears to be, intolerable.
The Devil’s Details
The Ethics Advisory Panel may have opened the door to review Mayor Lonegan’s “letter” and resolve its issue(s) pursuant to New Jersey’s Code of Conduct for the Governor . Of course, they may read the letter and decide they have no power to act.
In looking at the letter it only seems fair the Ethics Advisory Panel” initially take the letter’s facts as true and give them the meaning most favorable to the Mayor’s accusation(s). The letter to the panel, however, has yet to appear online and this blog is based on his earlier letters (letter1 and letter2). The facts in these letters are sparse .Thus we use unproved press accounts to help ask our questions and express our thoughts. It
cannot and in fairness to all should not be assumed the press accounts are before the Panel or that they are correct.
One might also be concerned about whether Mayor Lonegan has sufficient direct involvement to pursue the complaint as the panel advises the governor. One must also ask whether the Panel has the power to address any concerns about Ms. Katz role. If not the entire controversy may not be put to rest.
Finally, one would hope that Justice O’Hern would take the lead, and the Panel, if acting in something like a judicial or even advisory capacity, would adopt the rules of judicial conduct. Thus, if there is any ethical cloud in their past, they should announce it, publicly decide its effect, if any, and, necessity or not, appropriately proceed. Criticism they are not independent, whether because they were appointed by the Governor or anything else, must be laid to rest. In the end their credibility is as important as their reasoning that vindicates or restores the public’s faith and confidence in the Office.
That said one would imagine the Panel has the power to dismiss the letter without detailed review if the accusation(s) of legal impropriety do not clearly violate any particular ethics rule.
This is raised because the two letters do not seem to show the violation of any specific rule. It seems reasonable the Panel will distinguish Code of Conduct purpose from the individual rules that spell-out what types of conduct are or appear to be in intolerable conflict with that purpose. Thus, if the Code is to “ensure public trust and confidence” in the “conduct of the Governor”, one would hope the Panel spells out the circumstances where things like gifts to (or by) the Governor are or are not permitted. And it is hoped the Panel compares financial and personal suspicions of conflict, a tenuous conflict, and an inconsequential conflict, with an intolerable conflict, in either fact or appearance.
The Devil’s Advocate
1. What facts would lead the public to believe or disbelieve that either then Senator Corzine or Ms. Katz were acting in anything other than a personal capacity at the time the loan was made? Why? Because there don’t seem to be any common sense reason to believe otherwise. What direct personal, as opposed to official or union, financial interest does either Governor Corzine or Miss Katz have in the contract outcome? Will the gift be unforgiven? Conversely, there was no pressure from loan payments to be given or received to affect negotiations. It would seem any such pressure was removed at least two years ago by making the loan a gift. Our question is by analogy. Would a Judge selling a chunk of Merck stock because he might be called upon to try a Vioxx case be subject to similar accusations if eventually assigned a Vioxx case?
2. Money aside, how does their prior personal relationship affect the negotiators and thus the negotiations? The relationship ended in 2004 and the loan forgiven in 2005. It has not been disputed their separation was anything but amicable, i.e. polite, cordial. This doesn’t seem to resemble a degree of either favorable or unfavorable feelings between Governor Corzine and Ms. Katz that would prevent them from doing their respective jobs. That’s not to say there may not have been some subsequent moments, maybe even in the midst of negotiation, of anger or even laughs. But the level or intensity of reported passion, favorable or unfavorable, just doesn’t seem capable of preventing each individual from being other than normal adversaries and mutually respectful negotiators.
3. There has been speculation that Ms. Katz, during a contract discussion with the 6 other union presidents, strongly opposed a State bargaining point, and declared she intended and maybe even tried to privately see the Governor. But aside from the heat of the moment, cooler heads must have prevailed as no one has disputed the meeting never happened. No disrespect intended, but it seems Ms. Katz would have had to have grabbed a baseball bat or an evening gown, barged into the Governors office, and locked the Governor inside with her until he conceded the point – that would at least appear to be an intolerable bias. The bottom line is she must have realized it wasn’t a good idea because she didn’t push it. Thus, she showed the ability to properly overcome any personal disposition apart from normal ups and downs and do what she believed to be the right thing in reaching a final position.
4. Finally, barring a showing of fraud, a rubber stamp or some other extraordinary circumstance, and assuming an open, full, thorough and fair review of the contract, the Legislature and union members will decide if the contract is acceptable and have the power to make it binding – not the Governor or Ms. Katz.
The Devils’ Conjecture
Ok. Everyone has preferences and prejudices about the people we interact with and the things that we do. Furthermore, most people have influence, not the power, to determine an outcome. So, if preferences/prejudices and influence are the criteria for determining the propriety for negotiating the NJ-CWA labor agreement, then it is common sense that no one could pass the test. The overriding question then, is how one measures a preference or prejudice to determine if it is, or appears to be, intolerable.
The Devil’s Details
The Ethics Advisory Panel may have opened the door to review Mayor Lonegan’s “letter” and resolve its issue(s) pursuant to New Jersey’s Code of Conduct for the Governor . Of course, they may read the letter and decide they have no power to act.
In looking at the letter it only seems fair the Ethics Advisory Panel” initially take the letter’s facts as true and give them the meaning most favorable to the Mayor’s accusation(s). The letter to the panel, however, has yet to appear online and this blog is based on his earlier letters (letter1 and letter2). The facts in these letters are sparse .Thus we use unproved press accounts to help ask our questions and express our thoughts. It
cannot and in fairness to all should not be assumed the press accounts are before the Panel or that they are correct.
One might also be concerned about whether Mayor Lonegan has sufficient direct involvement to pursue the complaint as the panel advises the governor. One must also ask whether the Panel has the power to address any concerns about Ms. Katz role. If not the entire controversy may not be put to rest.
Finally, one would hope that Justice O’Hern would take the lead, and the Panel, if acting in something like a judicial or even advisory capacity, would adopt the rules of judicial conduct. Thus, if there is any ethical cloud in their past, they should announce it, publicly decide its effect, if any, and, necessity or not, appropriately proceed. Criticism they are not independent, whether because they were appointed by the Governor or anything else, must be laid to rest. In the end their credibility is as important as their reasoning that vindicates or restores the public’s faith and confidence in the Office.
That said one would imagine the Panel has the power to dismiss the letter without detailed review if the accusation(s) of legal impropriety do not clearly violate any particular ethics rule.
This is raised because the two letters do not seem to show the violation of any specific rule. It seems reasonable the Panel will distinguish Code of Conduct purpose from the individual rules that spell-out what types of conduct are or appear to be in intolerable conflict with that purpose. Thus, if the Code is to “ensure public trust and confidence” in the “conduct of the Governor”, one would hope the Panel spells out the circumstances where things like gifts to (or by) the Governor are or are not permitted. And it is hoped the Panel compares financial and personal suspicions of conflict, a tenuous conflict, and an inconsequential conflict, with an intolerable conflict, in either fact or appearance.
The Devil’s Advocate
1. What facts would lead the public to believe or disbelieve that either then Senator Corzine or Ms. Katz were acting in anything other than a personal capacity at the time the loan was made? Why? Because there don’t seem to be any common sense reason to believe otherwise. What direct personal, as opposed to official or union, financial interest does either Governor Corzine or Miss Katz have in the contract outcome? Will the gift be unforgiven? Conversely, there was no pressure from loan payments to be given or received to affect negotiations. It would seem any such pressure was removed at least two years ago by making the loan a gift. Our question is by analogy. Would a Judge selling a chunk of Merck stock because he might be called upon to try a Vioxx case be subject to similar accusations if eventually assigned a Vioxx case?
2. Money aside, how does their prior personal relationship affect the negotiators and thus the negotiations? The relationship ended in 2004 and the loan forgiven in 2005. It has not been disputed their separation was anything but amicable, i.e. polite, cordial. This doesn’t seem to resemble a degree of either favorable or unfavorable feelings between Governor Corzine and Ms. Katz that would prevent them from doing their respective jobs. That’s not to say there may not have been some subsequent moments, maybe even in the midst of negotiation, of anger or even laughs. But the level or intensity of reported passion, favorable or unfavorable, just doesn’t seem capable of preventing each individual from being other than normal adversaries and mutually respectful negotiators.
3. There has been speculation that Ms. Katz, during a contract discussion with the 6 other union presidents, strongly opposed a State bargaining point, and declared she intended and maybe even tried to privately see the Governor. But aside from the heat of the moment, cooler heads must have prevailed as no one has disputed the meeting never happened. No disrespect intended, but it seems Ms. Katz would have had to have grabbed a baseball bat or an evening gown, barged into the Governors office, and locked the Governor inside with her until he conceded the point – that would at least appear to be an intolerable bias. The bottom line is she must have realized it wasn’t a good idea because she didn’t push it. Thus, she showed the ability to properly overcome any personal disposition apart from normal ups and downs and do what she believed to be the right thing in reaching a final position.
4. Finally, barring a showing of fraud, a rubber stamp or some other extraordinary circumstance, and assuming an open, full, thorough and fair review of the contract, the Legislature and union members will decide if the contract is acceptable and have the power to make it binding – not the Governor or Ms. Katz.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
GOV. CORZINE MULTI-TASKING, AG RABNER CHOPPED LIKE CHICKEN LIVER
It’s not like there’s no sympathy for the Gannett Trenton Bureau Chief Bob Ingle’s (no oxymoron intended) frustration. But Bob’s Saturday morning (03/31) tirade was so bombastic it even made us wonder if he’d been hit by one windmill too many.
The plain gist of the article is (1) Governor Corzine is so busy endorsing Senator Clinton for President he can’t spend time sweeping Democratic Party corruption under the rug, and (2) if there’s any rooting out of corruption we only have U.S. Attorney Chris Christie to do it for us.
First, and probably most noticeable, is the lack of any reference to N.J. AG Rabner. The only implication that can be drawn from his praise of U.S. Attorney Christie as our only champion is that the AG Rabner is also closing his eyes to corruption.
Second, He assumes the Governor is corrupt using guilt by association of name with assumably corrupt Speaker Roberts and, if additional proof is necessary, it is that the Governor will soon announce his support for the also assumably corrupt Senator Hillary Clinton’s run for President. There is never a mention of the anti-corruption legislation the Governor has proposed, its substance, or the lack of Republican’s crossing party lines to adopt it. Never a mention of individual Republican interest in watered down outcomes. It seems clear that N.J. Republican’s are not only a party without platform or portfolio, but without voice. Hence, the forthcoming election will resemble the last – half-truths and smears.
Finally, his praise of U.S. Attorney Christie contradicts his own logic. The U.S. Attorney has amazingly broken prosecutorial silence to discuss the status of an investigation and stated he sees nothing to investigate in the Corzine-Katz relationship. Does that mean U.S. Attorney Christie also corrupt?
The plain gist of the article is (1) Governor Corzine is so busy endorsing Senator Clinton for President he can’t spend time sweeping Democratic Party corruption under the rug, and (2) if there’s any rooting out of corruption we only have U.S. Attorney Chris Christie to do it for us.
First, and probably most noticeable, is the lack of any reference to N.J. AG Rabner. The only implication that can be drawn from his praise of U.S. Attorney Christie as our only champion is that the AG Rabner is also closing his eyes to corruption.
Second, He assumes the Governor is corrupt using guilt by association of name with assumably corrupt Speaker Roberts and, if additional proof is necessary, it is that the Governor will soon announce his support for the also assumably corrupt Senator Hillary Clinton’s run for President. There is never a mention of the anti-corruption legislation the Governor has proposed, its substance, or the lack of Republican’s crossing party lines to adopt it. Never a mention of individual Republican interest in watered down outcomes. It seems clear that N.J. Republican’s are not only a party without platform or portfolio, but without voice. Hence, the forthcoming election will resemble the last – half-truths and smears.
Finally, his praise of U.S. Attorney Christie contradicts his own logic. The U.S. Attorney has amazingly broken prosecutorial silence to discuss the status of an investigation and stated he sees nothing to investigate in the Corzine-Katz relationship. Does that mean U.S. Attorney Christie also corrupt?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)