Archive: June, 2009
Bernard Madoff's 150-year prison sentence has sparked some debate as to whether the sentence is fair. Many of Madoff's victims cheered the federal judge's sentence for orchestrating what Madoff said a $50 billion Ponzi scheme that hurt scores of investors. Madoff's attorney Ira Sorkin called the sentence "absurd." Sorkin said: "My reaction is the justice system is not based on vengeance and it's not built on symbolism...150 years is absurd under the guidelines under the sentencing statutes."
The Inquirer editorial today said the sentence fit the crime, which was massive and went on for years.
Daily News columnist Elmer Smith says Madoff got off easy. He said prosecutors should have pressed him to cooperate and give up others who may have played a role in the scheme. Indeed, prosecutors will often work out plea deals with low-level conspirators in order to get to the big fish, but in this case Madoff was the top man. Smith raises an interesting point that perhaps the feds don't want Madoff's help in determining why the SEC failed to investigate allegations of the Ponzi scheme that date back years.
Meanwhile, the Associated Press is reporting that prosecutors may charge 10 others linked to the scheme.
What do you think? Was Madoff's sentence fair or too harsh?
So who exactly instigated the coup in Honduras?
On one side, you have President Obama and the U.S. State Department, along with the Organization of American States, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers and others (an odd grouping illustrated by cartoonist Michael Ramirez), saying that the removal of Honduran leader Manuel Zelaya is illegal and he should be reinstated.
On the other side are those inside Honduras and out, who say the democratically elected Zelaya was trying to usurp his country's constitution with a referendum that was viewed as a means of extending his power. The Honduran Supreme Court ruled the referendum illegal.
Mary Anastasia O'Grady writes in the Wall Street Journal: "While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite ... [a] constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress. But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chavez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court rules his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do."
Zelaya defied the court order, leading to the confrontation with the military and his deportation to Costa Rica. He will be appealing to the international community to return to Honduras.
After years of living in the burbs, a couple of friends from New Jersey are selling their house and moving to Center City. They're looking for a dog-friendly apartment, and finding many options.
But one building they've struck off their list was a complex where the management informed them that all tenants must pay a $1,000 "move-in" fee, as well as another $1,000 fee to move out when the lease expires. That's above and beyond a deposit.
It's ridiculous. How can any apartment building get away with such a charge?
The cable TV and networks devoted almost around-the-clock coverage the last few days to the death of pop star Michael Jackson. Even some prime time shows were preempted in order rehash Jackson's life and demise. By day two or three, it was clear there wasn't much "new" news to report. But that hasn't stopped TV from showing and re-showing video clips of Jackson, while recycling interviews with friends, associates and so-called experts to comment on his life and death. Look for the Jackson coverage to go on and on, especially as the summer news cycle slows.
Granted, Jackson was a major star with global reach. His death at age 50 was a surprising end to an interesting and colorful life, marked with some odd twists and turns. Jackson's death deserved proper and full coverage. But the blanket TV repetition for days on end has done little to advance the story and underscores how little substance exists when it comes to TV news, especially the cable networks that have lots of time to kill and not much of value to say. Though that doesn't stop many TV talking heads from prattling on.
A column in the Los Angeles Times asks if the TV coverage is too much. For anyone who has been watching TV the last few days, the answer is pretty clear.
In attempting to correct alleged “reverse discrimination” against white firefighters, the Supreme Court has made it easier to disregard past bias against minorities in making employment decisions.
Of course, the majority in the 5-4 decision in the case of Ricci v. New Haven, Conn.(www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf), would disagree with that assessment. But it’s true. In telling the City of New Haven it shouldn’t have gone the extra mile to ensure minority promotions, the court chose to ignore the very specific history of racial bias not only in New Haven’s fire department, but also in fire department’s across this nation.
Racial bias has been pervasive in America’s fire departments, where personnel are required to eat, sleep, and work with each other for 24-hour periods. It has only been in recent years that little black and brown boys and girls could routinely see firefighters who look like them and aspire to grow up to be a firefighter, too.
In a twist of irony, the ruling today came in a case that began in 2003, the same year that then-Justice Sandra Day Connor said it would be at least 25 years before America no longer needed race-based remedies to make up for past racial discrimination. It’s been only five years, but today’s more conservative court apparently believes that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “dream” of a society where everyone is colorblind has already been achieved.
A state grand jury is taking a fresh look at House Democratic Whip Bill DeWeese (D., Greene), the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports.
DeWeese, you may recall, has insisted he knew nothing about Democratic colleagues allegedly paying taxpayer-funded bonuses to aides for political work. He has not been charged. But former Democratic Rep. Mike Veon, who does face criminal charges in the "Bonusgate" probe, says DeWeese is equally culpable. If anyone should be held culpable, that is.
Investigators are said to be looking at print-outs of email, found in a box at the Capitol, to see if they shed any light on DeWeese's knowledge. Or lack thereof.
DeWeese continues to be an embarrassing distraction for a House Democratic majority that can't afford it. He should have resigned his post or been forced out by his colleagues long ago.
Here's a look at the lighter side of the cap and trade environmental bill rammed through the House last week before anyone had a chance to read it. The guys in the video, courtesy of www.taxfoundation.org, probably know as much about what's in the bill as those who voted for it.
Lancaster recently became the eighth Pennsylvania town to enact its own requirement that owners must report lost or stolen weapons.
Those may be baby steps compared with New Jersey lawmakers' final approval Frdiay of a monthly handgun purchase limit. But Pennsylvania's ordinances are an outgrowth of a smart push by gun-control groups and the national group Mayors Against Illegal Guns and gun-control advocates to move the issue.
Nearly 100 mayors across the state have signed on to support legislation to stem illegal gun sales. The mandate to report missing guns is a tactic to expose traffickers who use networks of legal buyers to acquire weapons.
Mayors, including Mayor Nutter, are the ones who have to live with the weekly carnage due to the easy availability of handguns in so many communities. As Reading Mayor Thomas McMahon told an Inquirer reporter recently, their view on gun deaths is "enough is enough."
With that much resolve from a growing number of local officials, it almost doesn't matter that the court challenges to these local ordinances from the National Rifle Association pose an uphill battle for these laws.
Read more on today's Inquirer Editorial Page.
Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Willis W. Berry Jr. should be removed from the bench and stripped of his pension for brazenly running a real estate business out of his chambers with city court staff.
A state judicial disciplinary court on Thursday made the compelling case for Berry's ouster from an elected post that pays him nearly $162,000 a year. It concluded that Berry broke the law by using city workers and office equipment.
That allegation should be pursued by city and state prosecutors. If nothing else, prosecutors' inquiries will serve as a warning against other city officials using taxpayer-paid staff to conduct personal business dealings.
Not only does the F-22 fighter jet evade radar, but it avoids federal budget cutters, too.
As we noted in an editorial in April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Obama want to cut Lockheed Martin's weapons system, which was built for the Cold War and costs up to $191 million per plane. Phasing out the fighter production is part of Gates' plan to overhaul Pentagon programs. Obama has even threatened to veto a defense bill if it includes the F-22 spending.
But lawmakers have a way of preserving defense contracts in their own backyards, whether or not it's the best use of tax dollars. That's what is happening with the F-22. The jet program employs 95,000 people in 44 states, including at software maker Teletronics Technology Corp. in Newtown, Bucks County.
The House, led by a Democrat whose district involves manufacturing the jet engines, blocked any attempt by lawmakers to cut F-22 funding from a $680 billion defense authorization bill. Twenty-seven Democrats voted against the maneuver, but none were from the Philadelphia region. Rep. Joe Sestak (D., Pa.), a retired admiral who had spoken out in favor of Gates' efforts to overhaul weapons systems, nevertheless voted for the rule that preserved F-22 funding.
Maybe this budget fight was a foregone conclusion. It's tough to hit a stealth jet with conventional weapons, much less with a budget axe.


