I clerked for one of the most honest, intelligent and qualified men to ever preside over a courtroom.  His name was James Cavanaugh, and much of what I know about commitment and service in my chosen profession was learned in his chambers.

Unfortunately, while Judge Cavanaugh was the rule, there are more than a few unsavory exceptions in this city and Commonwealth.  Those of us who are old enough to remember the Roofer’s Scandal don’t blink an eye at the possibility Justice Joan Orie Melvin committed improper acts.  As the Daily News observed in a recent editorial, she is entitled to the same presumption of innocence as any criminal defendant.  But there is no denying that the bench in this Commonwealth has had more than its fair share of legal lowlights.

That’s why I paused for a moment this week to honor the memory of a judge who not only gave his life to the law, but sacrificed his life for the law.  He is not a local boy, not even an American.  But his dedication to the proposition that obligations must be met, regardless of the danger, regardless of the cost, is something that we should all mark down.

Giovanni Falcone was born in Sicily, an island that has suffered through generations of violence and bloodshed because of the Mafia.  Unlike the transplanted version that took root in America at the turn of the last century, the Sicilian Mafia is an even more violent creature that attacks both the innocent and the guilty, and infects all levels of government.  It’s not a coincidence that one common nickname is “La Piovra,” the octopus.

Falcone was a man who loved his country as much as he loved the law, and realized that the best way to rid Italy of its poison was to employ that law at the highest levels.  He cooperated with Rudy Giuliani in what some called “The Pizza Connection” to dismantle the Gambino family on both continents. Some told him to stop, because they were worried about his safety.  Others warned him to stop, and threatened his safety.  But Falcone had this answer:

He who doesn’t fear death dies only once.

Giovanni Falcone was assassinated on May 23, 1992 in a Mafia ambush when a half-ton bomb exploded on the road that he was travelling between Palermo and its airport.  His wife,  and three bodyguards were also killed.

Two months later, his colleague and close friend Paolo Borsellino was also assassinated.  Borsellino picked up the mantle of his friend, despite the knowledge that he was inviting certain death. 

We often talk about the misconduct of judges.  It’s important to remember this part of the story, as well.

I’m sure Jimmy Hoffa is turning over in his grave (whichever stadium it’s under.)

That’s because the clearly-departed but legendary Teamsters leader wouldn’t quite lower himself to the shallow depths Donna DeWitt stooped to this past week.

Donna, or as she is known in adult circles, “De-Twit” decided that taking a whack at a Nikki Haley piñata was exactly the way to show how mature and serious union leaders/members are in this troubled economy.  The video of her antics, which took place at an apparent going away party for the outgoing AFL-CIO president in South Carolina, went viral.

Yes, conservatives took full advantage of the moment, not only because they could have, but because they should have.  The media has coddled unions for far too long, trying to smooth out the rough edges and make the worst of their members out to be noble representatives of the proletariat.  Remember when they stormed the state house in Wisconsin, ready to burn Scott Walker in effigy?

But it’s been getting harder and harder to tolerate the antics when you hear about the increasingly-desperate and often violent acts perpetrated by garden-variety thugs.

We only have to look in our own backyard to see union intimidation at work.   The Daily News recently ran a story about how the Pestronk brothers were being thwarted in their  attempts to complete construction on a project because some ‘union boys’ didn’t like the fact that they were employing SCAB labor in addition to some union guys.  In my book, SCAB stands for Someone (who) Cares About Business, which is quite different from Someone (who) Clamors About Benefits.

But even if you are a hardcore union supporter, like some of my own relatives, you have to agree that the conservative pundits got it right in calling out DeWitt, who showed herself to be classless, inarticulate and the stereotype of a female virago.

At least that’s one thing no one could ever call Hoffa.

I spend a lot of time in Newark, the one in Jersey, not the one in Delaware.  I’m not saying that I actually look forward to going there (crazy, I’m not) but in recent years the trips have been a little more pleasant.  Yes, that might sound like “I only have a little more cancer” but I’m being serious.  Ever since Corey Booker unseated the corrupt Sharpe James in the mayor’s race a few years ago, the city has been on the rise.  That’s because Booker is a decent fellow with an Ivy League pedigree, a no-nonsense view of crime and punishment (and rehabilitation,) a refusal to be a party zombie (he’s friends with Chris Christie, another iconoclast) and a refreshing ability to speak his mind.

Of course, when you are surrounded by people who are experts at speaking someone else’s mind, and who grind anyone who tells an accidental truth into dust, it doesn’t take much for you to backtrack, and less than gracefully.

 After Booker inartfully admitted the Obama campaign was wrong to attack venture capitalists, and that some of their attack ads were similar to the right’s crusade against Jeremiah Wright, he was pulled into one of those re-education camps that the North Koreans perfected.  It was as if the poor young mayor had become Lawrence Harvey in the Manchurian Candidate, re-programmed to sell the party line.

 Of course, conservatives had a field day with that one, launching a rather tasteless and pretextual campaign to ‘support’ Booker. The “I stand with Corey” schtick lacked even a vestige of sincerity, which made what could have been a great moment for Mitt Romney into a groan-inducing joke.

 Nonetheless, it is instructive to see how quickly President Obama calls in the wayward troops, especially when they spill the truthful beans.

 It’s going to be an interesting summer.

Some call vengeance evil. Others call it justice.  I think it depends on whose eyes you are looking through, and whether they have shed a victim’s tears.

I was thinking of this as I listened to a New Jersey judge render sentence against Dharun Ravi, the young man convicted of invading the privacy of Tyler Clementi.  Clementi threw himself off of the George Washington bridge when he realized that he’d been spied on having sex with another man, and that his Rutgers roommate was the architect of that cruel act.

Ravi was also convicted of witness tampering, hindering an investigation and other similar offenses.  But Ravi was neither charged with, nor convicted of, killing Clementi.

And yet, the media and special interest groups hijacked the narrative and pounded out the message that Clementi killed himself because he was ashamed of being gay, and that Ravi was the catalyst to the act.  It is almost as if they believed Ravi was standing behind Clementi on that bridge, and either whispered in his ear, or pushed him off.

There is no question that this case was the result of a perfect storm.  First, you have the increasingly intrusive state of technology which eliminates any private corner in our lives.  Then, you have the epidemic of suicide, particularly among young people.  And finally, you have society’s increased focus on bullying, particularly when the victims are-or are perceived to be-sexual minorities.

Dharun Ravi had no chance of being treated as a normal defendant.  He became the whipping boy for a lot of social causes.  He was not a young man who made a forgivable mistake, as so many young defendants (many of whom come from the inner city and blame drugs and poverty for their crimes) have been labeled by progressives.

Had Ravi been sentenced to significant prison time, he would have faced certain deportation.  Had he not been sentenced to some detention, he would have faced the anger of the advocates for those ‘social causes.’  And so the judge did what judges are supposed to do:  he rendered a just decision.

Ravi will get 30 days detention, as part of a probationary sentence of three years.  He will get community service.  He will pay fines.  But he will not be the sacrificial lamb to those ‘social causes’ which have motivated a despicable and dangerous slew of ‘hate crime’ laws.

This time around, vengeance was replaced by compassion.  And it looked like justice.

I spend my day helping people come to, or stay in, the United States.  (I also watch a lot of old Law and Order re-runs, but only between clients.) Some Americans tend to have a negative view about immigration, even though they make sure to define it as “illegal immigration.” That’s actually an interesting distinction, particularly when there is no current ‘legal’ way to immigrate that doesn’t take years unless, of course, you are a human rights activist from China in which case you can shame the United States into letting you in.

It is therefore strange for me to see someone who, having benefitted from living and working in this country for over a decade, decides to renounce the one thing that most of my clients would pay a king’s ransom for:  United States citizenship.  Interestingly enough, Edoardo Saverin has renounced his citizenship so that he could keep his own king’s ransom, billions of dollars that fell into his lap as a result of his involvement with Facebook.

Saverin was sympathetically portrayed in the movie “The Social Network” as the abused and abandoned friend of Mark Zuckerburg.  He has apparently parlayed that story into billions, and was unwilling to part with a few million in taxes that he would have owed to the U.S. government.

So, Saverin gave up the red white and blue, all the while embracing his native land of Brazil (and his new favorite country-of-the-heart Singapore, where they are much more lenient about taxes.)

That might be legal in tax circles.  However, it is neither ethical, nor is it wise if he ever wants to come back to visit his friend Mark in California.  That’s because the immigration laws ban anyone who has renounced their citizenship to avoid paying taxes from coming back to the United States, at least not on a permanent basis.  Savarin must realize this, because he’s now playing word games and trying to prove that money wasn’t his actual motive.

Too late.  Uncle Sam just ‘un-friended’ him.

I remember, years before the Iron Curtain fell, being absolutely fascinated with the kids from Soviet...or Soviet bloc countries...who competed in the Olympics. They were so talented, so focused, so disciplined. So unreal. I used to think that if you scratched them, they wouldn't bleed. They'd spark. That was because they had everything taken care of for them by Father State. They didn't need to think, or sweat, or choose.

Watching Nadia Comaneci score a perfect 10 was troubling. Here was a 16 year old girl, my own exact age, who'd just redefined perfection in her field, and her face betrayed nothing. Even her hug with her coach (now HE was an emotional guy) seemed almost perfunctory. This, I thought, is what happens when your life is planned for you. When the social safety net becomes all-encompassing, it strangles the independent soul. I had that same feeling again when I read President Obama's new campaign ad, The Life of Julia. As much of a pampered automaton as Nadia, Julia has her life taken care of from reproductively-independent womb to environmentally-friendly tomb.

Some people think it's wonderful that the government wants to cover us with affectionate (and taxpayer-funded) concern from our earliest moments, to our final breath.

I don't.  When you give us everything, you deprive us of the desire and ability to earn those most important things.  Like self-respect.

And not even an Olympic Gold Medal is worth that.

I once taught at a boy’s school, which was an interesting (and lovely) experience.  While girls generally get their frustrations out by means of subversive tactics, gathering in cliques and excelling at the double-speak matched only by KGB agents, boys are much less subtle in their approach to conflict.

It’s the difference between John Wayne shooting at the heart, and Marlene Dietrich killing with a look.

Boys tend to be more violent, more physical and yet, more honest in their dealings with adversaries.

And there is a method to their madness.  Boys, especially the adolescent variety, are not as verbal as their female counterparts.  They are not interested in emotions.  They are concerned with results.  Trying to get a boy to tell you how he feels about something elicits a vacant look of incomprehension on his newly broken-out face, swiftly followed by an existential shadow of pain.  Why, he is thinking, are you wasting my time?   Isn’t it obvious that I am angry?  And if you would leave me alone and just let me pound the head of that anger’s object into a wall, I will feel much better.  And I will be happy, then, to tell you how I am feeling.

That’s why I’m not overly concerned about Mitt Romney’s so-called bullying of a former classmate.  While the mainstream media are attempting to turn what Romney did into a form of ‘gay bashing,’ this ridiculous focus on a mean-spirited but not unprecedented prank is political agitprop.  “Scissor-gate” as I like to call it, is far from a Matthew Sheppard style hate crime, and the timing of the story put out by the Washington Post and slavishly repeated by the New York Times is suspect.

Obama evolves to the point where he thinks gay marriage is good.  Romney devolves into an animalistic, hateful homophobe.  Need proof?  He cut someone’s hair for God’s sake!

Having lived with three brothers and having taught hundreds of other boys during my career, this falls pretty darn low on the scale of hate crimes.  No blood.  Some  scuffling.  Embarrassment  and an unflattering hairstyle.

Yes, it doesn’t reflect well on an eighteen year old Mitt.  But who of us is completely comfortable with our younger selves?

I’m sure even Barack Obama did some things as a teen he wouldn’t want us to know about.  Unless, of course, he gets paid a nice advance from the publisher of his next book “After I Woke Up.”

Here is what Barack Obama now has to say about same-sex marriage:

“I’ve been going through an evolution on this issue.  At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

Wow.  How great!  The President has shown that he can ‘evolve’ and change his opinion on issues of fundamental importance to Americans.

I can’t wait to hear him make this comment, hopefully before November:

“I’ve been going through an evolution on this issue.  At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think a fetus is a human being, and should be able to survive regardless of the unilateral desires of the mother.”

I truly do believe in the theory of evolution.

Normally, I don't really pay attention to what actors and actresses say.  I realize they are overly-impressed with themselves, and that much like the infant who is fascinated by his own toe (or the new parent mesmerized by the glory of his perfect poo) they have a tendency to exaggerate the importance of their thoughts.

It's not just stars who do it, of course.  Anyone who blogs (mea culpa) has a tendency to think that their every comment is worthy of Alexis de Tocqueville treatment.  It's only natural; humility is an acquired virtue in a society where women get attention for teasing their hair, getting drunk and wearing so much makeup they make the late Tammy Faye Baker look minimalist in comparison.

But every now and then, I notice a particularly offensive comment from a particularly offensive source, and it's hard to look away.  It's like the proverbial accident; you simply cannot tear your eyes and ears away from the mess.

In this case, the mess happens to be Cher.  Now, for anyone who has been paying attention for the past five decades, Cher has always been a mess.  Her life has been a mess.  Her hair has been a mess.  Her mothering habits have been messy, too, given the fact that her daughter is now a son and her son is currently between rehab stints.

She has had good moments, as when she won the Oscar for Moonstruck and appeared at the Academy Awards wearing Ruth Buzzy's hairnet...as a dress.

Her music is also pretty fine, including my favorite song, Half-Breed, which seems to be the theme for Elizabeth Warren's senatorial campaign.

But when Cher went off recently calling Mitt Romney a racist, among other things, she showed that actors and actresses are nothing more than highly-paid toddlers who wage tantrums simply because they can.

My own nephew, an unpaid toddler, is actually more mature than the plucked, tucked, and (I am not going there) 'courted' remnant from the glitter decades.

I love it when Cher sings.  The rest of the time, she should just keep her mouth shut.  As Mark Twain once famously said, better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.