Oh my, that's a howler! GA busted a gut laughing.
Props to Julie, for telling it like it allegedly is. Allegedly speaking. In this post-SLAPP era of online timidity, it is refreshing to see a gal/guy (of the Reform-persuasion) exercise their NJ Constitutionally-protected right of free political speech under their own name!
Wait a minute, GA... don't you mean the US Constitution and its First Amendment ?
Yes, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression: freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief.
But no, GA meant the NJ Constitution, because you peeps who have not yet been SLAPPed may not know that New Jersey's State Constitution affords greater protections for political free speech than the US Constitution!
Yes, boys and girls, turn to Article I, Rights and Privileges:
2. a. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.Paragraphs 2, 6 and 18 are a regular Triple-decker Free Speech Sandwich, NJ-style. Dig in!
6. Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.
18. The people have the right freely to assemble together, to consult for the common good, to make known their opinions to their representatives, and to petition for redress of grievances.
Now all New Jersey needs are Anti-SLAPP laws to safeguard its citizens from frivolous lawsuits, and to save 'someone' a fortune.
Well, aside from Julie's Al Capone howler, here's GA's fave line:
These folks are nothing less than crooks and thieves...any effort that involves them, cites them, or collaborates with them is getting in bed with that element.Or like somebody's mama used to say: lie down with dogs and wake up with fleas.
Funny, but who should come to the rescue, but one of the Respondents in a headline-making ELEC complaint, charged with numerous "reporting transactions" for her role as Deputy-Treasurer on Beth Mason's 2009 "Team for One Hoboken" campaign, Ines Garcia Keim:
Julie, I don't know you but I wonder if you know Dr. Petrosino or if you have ever spoken with him. I have not always agreed with him but the fact is that Dr. Petrosino has a PhD in Education and is a tenured professor at the University of Texas which has a highly regarded graduate education program.GA loves that argument. A PhD degree = a dip in a baptismal font.
As though any correlation exists between ethics and intelligence, or ethics and academic success. It doesn't. In fact, the more educated an ethically-challenged person is, the more likely that person will be to escape detection, and get a 'pass' from people who say, "oh no, not him because he's got a PhD!"
To prove the point, history is rife with highly educated and/or highly intelligent accomplished folks who have demonstrated highly unethical behavior. To name just a few:
Ted Kaczynski (A.K.A. The Unabomber).
Kaczynski skipped the 5th grade after testing 167 on an IQ test. He entered Harvard at the age of 16 where he earned his undergraduate degree by age 20. He earned his PhD in mathematics at the University of Michigan, where he focused on geometric function theory. After this, he was hired by the University of Berkeley, becoming their youngest professor . He won the University of Michigan's Sumner B. Myers prize, thanks to a PhD thesis on boundary functions, recognized as that year's best mathematics dissertation.
Tested with an IQ of 145
Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold
Leopold was a child prodigy who reportedly spoke his first words at 4 months, and possessed a recorded IQ of 210. Leopold graduated college with honors from Harvard in 1923. Richard Loeb had an IQ estimated at between 160 and 168.
Possessing a reported IQ score of 136.
Of course, those people possessed rottenness of historic proportions, but you get the drift.
Some of the biggest dolts (IQ-wise) are extremely good, honest and/or law-abiding. Some of the biggest brainiacs are not. So much for that argument.